Preamble

The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock

The House being met, Mr. Charles Williams, the Chairman of Ways and Means, at the request of Mr. Speaker, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Deputy-Speakers: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of David Owen Evans, Esquire, Member for the County of Cardigan, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

1
2
3
4
5
6


Date when Closure moved, and by whom
Question before House or Committee when moved
Whether in House or Committee
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Speaker or Chairman
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion
Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

and (2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:

1
2
3
4
5


Date when Closure moved, and by whom
Question before Committee when moved
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Chairman
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion
Result of Motion, and, if a Division, Numbers for and against."

—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS

Return ordered:
of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1944–45:
Of all the Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1944–45 have been reported on by

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BUCKS WATER BOARD BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 8

Return ordered:
of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 8, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing, the definite matter of urgent public importance, and the result of any Division taken thereon, during Sessions 1939–40, 1940–41, 1941–42, 1942–43, 1943–44 and 1944–45."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 26)

Return ordered:
respecting application of Standing Order No. 26 (Closure of Debate) during Sessions 1939–40, 1940–41, 1941–42, 1942–43, 1943–44 and 1944–45 (1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:

Committees on Opposed Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the He use and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been not


proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:

Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session 1944–45 have been referred by the Committee of Selection to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on the Committee; the number of days on which the Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member was summoned and on which each Member attended:

And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

PUBLIC BILLS

Return ordered:
of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1944–45; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this House, but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords, but not by this House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS

Return ordered:
of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session 1944–45, with the total number of signatures in that Session."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

SELECT COMMITTEES

Return ordered:
of the number of Select Committees appointed in Session 1944–45, the Chairman's Panel and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE AND BUSINESS OF SUPPLY

Return ordered:
of (1) the days on which the House sat in Sessions 1939–40, 1940–41, 1941–42, 1942–43, 1943–44 and 1944–45, stating for each day the

date of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and snowing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after the time appointed for the interruption of Business; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings; and (2) the days on which Business of Supply was considered."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

STANDING COMMITTEES

Return ordered:
for Sessions 1939–40, 1940–41, 1941–42, 1942–43, 1943–44 and 1944–45 of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the five Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47, showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present; (2) the number of Bills considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of days on which each Committee sat, and the names of all Bills considered by a Standing Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing, in the case of each Bill, the particular Standing Committee by whom it was considered, the number of days on which it was considered by the Committee, and the number of Members present on each of those days."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Overseas Service (Home Leave)

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the present quota for leave per month in the C.M.F.; and whether this quota can now be increased.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that men serving in a R.A.S.C. company, of which he knows, were notified on transfer to the B.L.A. from the M.E.F. and C.M.F. that the chance of seven day's home leave to which they became entitled would not affect their prospects under the Python scheme; that their Python leave of 28 days should start on 4th July, when they will have completed four-and-a-half years' overseas service, but they have now been told they must complete five years' service overseas before becoming eligible for


Python leave; and if he will take steps to mitigate the disappointment thus caused to these men and their relatives.

Sir William Davison: asked the Secretary of State for War whether arrangements can now be made for the return of married men to this country after three years' service in S.E.A.C.

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements have been made, or are contemplated, for the troops serving in Italy, who went through the campaigns in North Africa, Sicily and Italy, and many of whom have been abroad for three and a half years and have served under onerous conditions.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement about the repatriation of British troops in Italy; whether leave is still being granted to troops in Italy who are then returned to that country, or whether leave for those men in early demobilisation groups is being stopped so that they will be repatriated and demobilised at the same time; and whether he is aware that many soldiers in Italy have been overseas since 1941 and that their claims are not receiving sufficient attention as regards repatriation.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that some officers and men, now serving in Italy, who formed part of the Eighth Army, have had no leave to this country during the past three years; whether leave arrangements can be improved; and whether the Forces in Italy are granted leave on the same scale as those serving in the B.L.A. and in Burma.

Major Kimball: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a number of men have been posted direct to B.L.A. after long periods of overseas service in C.M.F. and M.E.F.; and whether in such cases these men will receive a longer period of leave in the United Kingdom than the 10-day period granted to men who only went abroad with the B.L.A.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): I would refer my hon. Friends to the statement I made in the course of the Debate on Friday.

Mr. Driberg: While appreciating the point of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, may I ask him whether he has been able to investigate the particular case referred to in Question 3, and the apparent discrepancy?

Sir J. Grigg: As I understand it, the particular point of that was that men have been told that the grant of seven days' leave would stop their Python entitlement. I made it clear to the hon. Member, and I will make it clear to the people concerned, that there is no question of that.

Major Kimball: Js my right hon. Friend aware that his statement on Friday did not deal with the particular case mentioned in Question 43, that of a man posted from S.E.A.C. direct to the B.L.A.? Will he look into the matter?

Sir J. Grigg: I thought it did deal with these questions. I tried to explain earlier that men posted for operational reasons from the C.M.F. to the B.L.A. had a choice—either a small number could have 28 days' leave or the whole lot could have nine days' leave. A personal arrangement was made with Field-Marshal Montgomery whereby the whole of them were given leave at a shorter period. If there had been any longer period they would not have taken part in the battle at all.

Mr. Mathers: Has the Minister made any arrangement to have the important parts of his speech of last Friday circulated? Does he realise from the further questions which have been put to him now, that it is important that what lie said should be widely known?

Sir J. Grigg: All I could do at short notice was to arrange for the general sense of my remarks to be broadcast on the General Forces programme, and I had arranged beforehand for the Army newspapers in the various theatres of operations to reserve space to print it as fully as possible. I would like to consider whether any other steps are necessary.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is the Minister aware that his speech on Friday did not cover all the points, for instance, that of a man in the Middle East for three years who is transferred to Europe, and has only nine days' leave.

Sir J. Griģģ: I have just answered a question on that point.

Mr. Cocks: Is there any need to keep a large Army in Italy at the present time? Cannot the Forces there be reduced?

Sir J. Griģģgg: I do not think that that arises out of the seven main Questions to which I have just replied.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the large number of letters I have received from the C.M.F., and while recognising that the Minister's statement on Friday will give a measure of satisfaction, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there is still deep feeling among the lads out there in connection with leave?

Sir J. Griģģ: The hon. Member's means of communication with the C.M.F. are much quicker than mine if he has already got reactions from there in the course of the week-end.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for War if men, who were sent overseas without embarkation leave and have in many instances been overseas 2½ years, can now be allowed home leave without having to wait for their turn to come under the general leave scheme.

Sir J. Griģģ: All periods of leave granted to a soldier are entered in his Army Book 64. This enables his commanding officer to compute the aggregate of his leave for comparison with that of his comrades and there is little or no doubt that this factor would be taken into account—but a general rule on this point would be impracticable. There ate cases, for example, where a man missed his embarkation leave but had more leave in general than a man who went on embarkation leave.

Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when a man has been sent overseas without embarkation leave, it may mean that he leaves his domestic affairs in confusion, and has he not a claim to have that made up at the earliest possible moment?

Sir J. Griģģgg: The hon. Member must be well aware that during the period troops were in this country, they had in general a leave every three months, and, therefore, if a man leaves his affairs in a complete mess, they had only three months to get into that complete mess.

Quarters (Post-War Plans)

7. Major Nield: asked the Secretary of State for War what plans he has for the provision of additional quarters for the Regular Army; and if he is able to make a statement thereon.

Sir J. Griģģgg: I regret that the post-war plans for the Army are not yet final enough for me to make any statement.

Ex-Prisoners of War (Overseas Posting)

Mr. Viant: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the spirit of resentment being expressed by relatives and members of the public at the drafting of returned prisoners of war from the Far East after a minimum period of six months in this country; and will he review this policy with a view to drafting others who have not done foreign service.

Sir J. Griģģ: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave the hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham Little) on 3rd May, and the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) on 8th May.

Requisitioned Horses (Re-purchase)

13. Major Kimball: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the owners of horses which were requisitioned for the Army in the early months of the war can now be allowed to re-purchase those horses; and at what reduction from the requisitioning price.

Sir J. Griģģ: Provided the horses are in this country they will be put up to auction when they become surplus. Arrangements have been made to give notice of the sale to those who have asked to be given an opportunity of buying specific horses.

Major Kimball: Does my right hon. Friend think it is fair to the owners of these horses which were requisitioned that they should now only be given the chance of getting them back at a public auction, where they will have to bid for what is their own, and will not be allowed to buy them back at the prices at which they were requisitioned?

Sir J. Griģģ: I should have thought that the arrangement I mentioned was a reasonably fair one, but I will certainly consider whether it is possible to make arrangements which are more favourable to those who originally gave up the horses.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Will the Minister take steps to see that any horses sent to the Continent are not sold there, in view of the fact that many people there do not know how to treat them?

Sir J. Griģģ: That does not arise directly out of this Question, but I have given answers on that point previously in the House, and I will send the hon. Member a reference after I have refreshed my memory.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Would the Minister also stop horses being sold to syndicates and little trusts which somehow buy good working horses and sell them as horse flesh because there is a market for it abroad?

Sir J. Griģģ: That Question ought to be put on the Order Paper, because it contains an entirely new point and allegations which I am not in a position to check now.

Commander Locker-Lampson: One of them may win the Derby one day.

Home Guard Rifle Clubs (Expenses)

Mr. Burke: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that many members of Home Guard rifle clubs are finding the cost of ·303 ammunition a great financial burden, especially when the cost of travelling to and from the range involves further considerable expense; and will he consider the matter with a view to reducing this charge.

Sir J. Griģģ: The price of this ammunition charged to members of Home Guard rifle clubs represents its cost to the State. Generally speaking, I see no grounds for reducing this charge, but a free issue of a limited quantity of ·303 ammunition is being made available to members of Home Guard rifle clubs during the current year for competition shooting.

Mr. Burke: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that some of these men have to pay as much as 3s. to travel to the range, and in the case of family men, as most of these men are, it means a very considerable financial burden? If the State wants to encourage them ought it not to give some financial help?

Sir J. Griģģ: This is a matter which might be considered in conjunction with the organisation of the post-war Army.

B.L.A. (Doctors)

Mr. Seaborne Davies: asked the Secretary of State for War what proportion the number of doctors bears to the total number of men in the B.L.A.

Sir J. Griģģ: The ratio of medical officers of the R.A.M.C. to Army personnel, male and female, in S.H.A.E.F. and 21 Army Group is about 1 to 382. The responsibilities of the R.A.M.C. include, however, considerable assistance to the other Services and to Allied Forces and to displaced persons. The degree of assistance given by the R.A.M.C. in connection with these extraneous commitments, and the volume of the latter fluctuate so greatly that any exact ratio of doctors to patients or potential patients of all categories is impossible to assess. The best that I can give is that there are something of the order of 1,400 people of various categories who have to rely on each member of the R.A.M.C. for health services.

Mr. Seaborne Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a widespread feeling in the Royal Army Medical Corps that the proportion is too high and that many of them might well be released to come home to help their hard pressed colleagues at home?

Sir J. Griģģ: That is as may be, but I would not be quite certain that in some cases that feeling is not connected with the desire to get home. What I am clear about is that certainly in theatres of war where active operations are still going on the supply of doctors is not too high but too low.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some billeting areas the proportion is one doctor to 4,000 of the population?

Sir J. Griģģ: The average over the country is certainly much less than that.

Dr. Edith Summer skill: Is the Minister aware that under the National Health Insurance Act one civilian doctor is allowed for 2,500 patients?

Sir J. Griģģ: I thought the number was 3,000, but I am prepared to take the figure from the hon. Lady.

Commander Locker-Lampson: The fewer the doctors the healthier the population.

Leave (Travel Arrangements)

Mr. Seaborne Davies: asked the Secretary, of State for War whether, in view of the difficulties and delays of travel beyond Crewe experienced by soldiers from North Wales coming home on leave from the B.L.A. or other foreign service, he will compensate them by the grant of an extra day's leave.

Flight-lieutenant Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for War. whether he is aware that personnel on leave from Burma under the L.I.A.P. scheme for 28 days do not get travelling time in addition to the period of leave and that officers and men proceeding on leave from London to Scotland and Ireland are badly affected; and whether he will make some concessions in this direction.

Sir J. Griģģ: The present leave scheme for those coming from overseas, other than from North-West Europe, is intended to give the men 28 days at their homes. Those coming by sea have ample time for travelling. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton is, I think, referring to those who come by air and I am grateful to him for drawing my attention to this problem. Instructions are being issued that these men shall be given sufficient travelling time to ensure that they can spend 28 clear days at their homes. For those coming home from North-West Europe the period of leave is 11 days in this country including travelling time. This normally ensures nine days at home. In the exceptional cases where travelling time is insufficient extra time is allowed.

Mr. Seaborne Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain exactly whether or not he is prepared to grant an extra day's leave to these men who find considerable difficulty in getting to remote parts of North Wales?

Sir J. Griģģ: I thought I had answered that Question pretty categorically. I am very sorry if I was not clear. Instructions are being issued that these men shall be given sufficient travelling time to ensure that they can spend 28 clear days at their homes.

Flight-lieutenant Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make Brighton railway station a terminus for B.L.A. and other leave men, and thus enable the R.T.O. to arrange for

their accommodation should they miss the last connection to various south-coast stations without their having to lose a night of their leave.

Sir J. Griģģ: I understand that insufficient men travel to this area to justify a special train. The Railway Traffic Officer can already arrange for men to spend the night and I have not heard of any being stranded.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: While agreeing that a small number of men are entailed, may I ask whether it would not be a small matter for the War Office to allow them to have one centre where they can stay the night, thus giving them an extra day's leave instead of their losing one?

Sir J. Griģģ: On the question of losing a day's leave, if my hon, and gallant Friend will study the answer I gave to Question 17, which included an answer to his Question 40, he will see that it will not arise in future.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for War why landing craft tanks, which are taking food to Europe, are returning empty and are hot used to bring back men on leave and so increase the number of men who could enjoy home leave.

Sir J. Griģģ: These vessels are built and are being used to take vehicles to the Continent. If they brought men back to this country it is not clear how the men would get back when their leave was over. The vessels are small and uncomfortable and cannot sail regularly.

Lost Cap Badges (Charge)

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for War on what grounds soldiers are made to pay 5s. for cap badges lost in action.

Sir J. Griģģ: Regulations provide for a cap badge lost in action to be replaced free. It it only if the loss is due to neglect or carelessness that the man is called upon to meet the cost, which in general does not exceed 4½d. for each badge.

Mr. Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have a letter signed by ten Servicemen saying they were fined 5s., whereas the cost to the Ministry is approximately the figure given by the right hon. Gentleman? Is he aware that if these


men do not pay that sum they are open to a charge which will deprive them of seven days' pay?

Sir J. Griģģ: I should be glad to look into that matter. Apart from some disciplinary offence—I cannot tell whether that was present—I would be very surprised to find that anybody had been called upon to pay 5s. for a badge.

Mr. Edwards: If I handed this letter to the right hon. Gentleman, could I be sure that these men would not be victimised?

Sir J. Griģģ: I think that insinuation is entirely unwarranted. I have had, I suppose, tens of thousands of specific and individual cases raised by hon. Members, and I do not think anybody could produce a single case where the men have been victimised.

Mr. Shinwell: On the question of insinuation, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that hon. Members, certainly myself, receive many letters from men stating grievances, or alleged grievances, and asking that their names be concealed because they are afraid of some unfavourable response from the officers concerned?

Sir J. Griģģ: There is also quite a possibility, which has not been absent from my experience, that the men wish their names to be concealed because the grievances are not true.

Mr. Edwards: May I take it from the right hon. Gentleman that his answer is in the affirmative, and that he guarantees the men will not be victimised?

Sir J. Griģģ: Certainly they will not be victimised, and certainly I will look into the case. I am willing to bet a considerable shade of odds that the case cannot be substantiated.

Mr. Shinwell: When the right hon. Gentleman says that statements made by serving men to hon. Members may be untrue, or are untrue, is that not a very grave insinuation?

Sir J. Griģģ: I said it was not unknown that they might be untrue, which is quite a different thing.

Requisitioned Property (Release)

Mr. Glanville: asked the Secretary of State for War when he intends to issue instructions for the derequisitioning of

meeting halls and dwelling houses in the Consett district, in view of the fact that these have not been used by the military authorities for some considerable time and in view of the dearth of houses and social amenities for the people in that district.

Sir J. Griģģ: I am making a statement about these matters in general after Questions. These particular properties are no longer needed by the Army and will be released shortly.

Mr. Spearman: asked the Secretary of State for War why most of the Scarborough hotels released by the Air Ministry were compulsorily taken over by his Department but Mr. Butlin was able to get possession of his camp near Filey; and if he will consider requisitioning this camp and releasing some of the hotels which are necessary to the prosperity of neighbouring towns.

Sir J. Griģģ: A number of hotels and boarding houses have been released in Scarborough, but some accommodation must be retained there for the Army. After local consultation it was decided to retain a few large hotels. Where the choice lies between hotels and holiday camps it is, I agree, arguable which should be released first, but I am certainly not prepared to say that the wrong decision was taken in this case.

Mr. Spearman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in the case of retaining hotels instead of a camp, the hardship is not only on the hotel proprietors but on the seaside town as a whole, which is dependent on visitors for its prosperity?

Sir J. Griģģ: I should have thought that the same argument would apply to holiday camps.

Discharge Leave

Mr. Walter Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will now make a statement upon the question of the leave granted to Army personnel when discharged under paragraph 390 (xvii)a, K.R., 1940, and paragraph 390 (xxi)b, K.R., 1940.

Sir J. Griģģ: As I said in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) on 29th May other ranks whose terminal leave on discharge begins on or after 8th May will in general receive 56 days' leave on full pay unless


they are discharged on voluntary termination of full pay service, or to enter the Navy or the Air Force, or on appointment to a commission or for misconduct. This also applies to officers.

R.A.S.C. Private (Release Application)

Mr. Loverseed: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now release, for employment in the Mercantile Marine, No. 14744013, Private A. W. Tann, R.A.S.C., who sustained injuries whilst chief engineer of H.M.S. "Empire Jonathon" on D-Day and who was subsequently arrested in Greenwich Hospital and enlisted in the Army.

Sir J. Griģģ: An application for release from the Army for transfer to other employment of national importance can only be considered if it is forwarded by the Government Department concerned, in this case the Ministry of War Transport. I am sorry that in spite of my letter to him of 28th February the hon. Member has seen fit to put down his Question in the same misleading form as his original one. The Army had nothing directly to do with this man until 21st November, 1944, when he was released from Wandsworth prison after serving a sentence as a result of a civil conviction. His arrest in Greenwich Hospital was presumably connected with this conviction.

Mr. Loverseed: Is it not a fact that a man with the experience of this Merchant Service officer is of far more value to the Merchant Service than he is kicking his heels in the Army?

Sir J. Griģģ: I understand, since the hon. Member has forced me into disclosing the facts about this particular man, that he left the Merchant Navy in circumstances which showed that the Merchant Navy had no longer any desire for his services.

Mr. Loverseed: In view of the discredit which the Minister is attempting to put upon this man's head, is it not a fact that after he was alleged to have been discharged from the Merchant Service he was found of sufficient use to take a boat to Arromanches on D-Day and drop the first blockship there?

Sir J. Griģģ: I have never been able to verify that, but in any case the fact remains that the hon. Member keeps on

accusing the Army of having dealt with this man roughly, whereas all the rough things that happened to him happened before he ever reached the Army.

Mr. Shinwell: If this person is as terrible as the right hon. Gentleman alleges, why hold him in the Army?

Sir J. Griģģ: The Army has quite often turned bad material into good.

Mr. Loverseed: Is it not a fact that when this soldier was arrested he was in possession at that time of his Merchant Service cards, and was in the uniform of a chief engineer in the Merchant Service, and despite that he was kept in the "rat pit" at Bradford, and had to suffer the indignity of cigarettes being thrown over to him by the guards?

Sir J. Griģģ: The hon. Member produces a lot of lurid details which I am not in a position to verify. All I say is that when he was picked up he was picked up as the consequence of a civil offence.

Harringay Arena (Repairs)

Mr. Messer: asked the Secretary of State for War why it is necessary to repair the Harringay arena, in view of the fact that it has been capable of use by the military since it was damaged by enemy action a year ago, and can still be used for the temporary period for which it will be required.

Sir J. Griģģ: It has not been possible to use the damaged part of the building and the stores have had to be cleared out but as the space is needed the damage is being made good.

Mr. Messer: Is it not a fact that the stores which have been removed have been adequately warehoused and that, as soldiers have been billeted, there really is not the need for repair that there is for repair of the houses in the neighbourhood?

Sir J. Griģģ: If soldiers have been billeted, presumably they are taking up space which would otherwise be available for accommodation. What I am assured is that it is an economical matter, both as regards the custody of the stores and as regards accommodation generally, that this building should be repaired. Any idea that it is being repaired in order to provide facilities for dog racing, or whatever it is, is not justified.

Mr. Messer: As the right hon. Gentleman should know, as he is responsible for the part of the Army that is there, the arena is not used for dog racing. Is he aware that in the locality, which has been badly damaged by blitz, there is very high feeling because they believe that shortly it will be released from the Army and will be used for a sports arena?

Sir J. Griģģ: I think the inhabitants of the district, if they have that feeling, might carry out the injunction not to fall before they are pushed.

Mr. Messer: They have fallen.

Sir J. Griģģ: They have not fallen at all. The stadium is not being used for a sports arena, and a sports arena occupies quite a low place in the priority for the release of de-requisitioned premises.

Mr. Messer: If that is the case, why is it being repaired?

Sir J. Griģģ: To house the stores that are already there.

Ordnance Depot, Slaithwaite (Holiday Pay)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that men who did not report for work at the ordnance depot, Slaithwaite, on VE-Day minus one have not been paid wages for either VE-Day or VE-Day plus one, notwithstanding the Government's announcement that this would be done; and if he will remedy this.

Sir J. Griģģ: A number of industrial employees at this depot who were absent from their work both on the day preceding the VE holidays and on the day following the holidays did not receive pay for the holidays. This was in accordance with the ordinary conditions applicable to paid holidays as agreed with the Trade Unions representing War Department civilian employees. I see no reason for varying these conditions of service in favour of employees who absented themselves without good reason on the day following the holidays, but as it was not known before the evening of 7th May that the next two days would be holidays instructions are being issued that any employees absent only on the day preceding the VE holidays should be paid wages for the holidays.

Mr. Hall: It is rather hard on men who, through no fault of their own, were absent. Perhaps they overdid it on VE-day but surely, if others were entitled to pay, they, too, were entitled.

Sir J. Griģģ: I am told that the general rule is arrived at in agreement with the trade unions concerned. Where it is reasonably clear that absence was not prearranged and that it was not taking French leave, pay will be issued, but in those cases where it is pretty clear that absence Was not involuntary the ordinary rule would apply.

Italian Co-operators (Fraternisation)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will withdraw the non-fraternisation order now in force against Italian co-operators employed in this country.

Sir J. Griģģ: Italian co-operators have always been permitted to talk to members of the public and accept invitations to visit their homes.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Secretary of State make that known to persons commanding camps where Italian co-operators are being used? Is he aware that this non-fraternisation order still exists and is causing some considerable trouble?

Sir J. Griģģ: There never has been a non-fraternisation order as far as co-operators are concerned.

Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. Gentleman responsible for all prisoners of war or only for prisoners of war working under Army conditions? In Air Force camps is he responsible for them or not?

Sir J. Griģģ: I do not think there are any separate Air Force camps for prisoners of war. The general responsibility for Italian prisoners of war is mine. I am not quite clear as to the exact responsibility of the employing Departments.

Mr. Stokes: If I send the right hon. Gentleman particulars of this camp where the non-fraternisation order is in force, will he look into it with his right hon. Friend?

Sir J. Griģģ: The hon. Member had better send it to my right hon. Friend first.

Mr. Stokes: Is he responsible?

Sir J. Griģģ: That is the question that I am trying to answer. For the general conditions of all prisoners in the country and their general custody I am responsible. I am not sure that I can answer without notice who is responsible in detail when they are farmed out for particular purposes.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert Acland-Troyte: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large number of people object to these Italians walking loose all over the country?

Sir J. Griģģ: It has been brought home to me on more than one occasion that there are two opinions on this matter and, as usual, I comfort myself with the thought that the War Office has steered its way reasonably in the centre between them.

Death Sentences on Civilians, Germany

Mr. Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the procedure adopted in the case of death sentences upon civilians passed by military courts in occupied Germany; and whether any form of appeal is to be instituted before the sentence is carried out.

Sir J. Griģģ: Every sentence of death must be submitted for review at least by the district commander providing he holds a rank not lower than major-general. He may set aside the finding of guilty with or without ordering a new trial, or, if he confirms the finding, he may confirm, commute or remit the sentence. The sentence can only be put into execution if he confirms the finding and sentence in writing. He is assisted by qualified legal officers. The convicted person has no right of appeal to a higher court, but has the right to lodge a petition against conviction or sentence, or both, in which he, with the assistance of his legal adviser, is at liberty to set out any legal or factual argument in support of his case.

Psychiatric Disorders and Tuberculosis

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will now state, approximately, how many men have been discharged from the Army suffering from psycho-neurosis and tuberculosis, respectively; and how many of these are receiving indoor treatment.

Sir J. Griģģ: In 1943 and 1944 a total of 7,621 other ranks were discharged from

the Army suffering from tuberculosis and 42,480 suffering from psychiatric disorders. It has not yet been possible to extract from the records the figures for earlier years or for officers. Once they have left the Army they leave the charge of the Army medical authorities and I have no figures to provide an answer to the last part of the hon. Member's Question.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that these unfortunate men should continue to have the oversight and treatment of the Army, and is he satisfied that this type of patient is getting all the attention that can possibly be secured?

Sir J. Griģģ: As regards tuberculosis, the recent arrangement I made ensured that. As regards psychiatric disorders, the Army is doing its part pretty well. Hon. Members ought not to forget that there is a large section of opinion which thinks that psychiatric is capable of a rather ruder translation.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his statement leaves an unfortunate impression with regard to a large number of these unfortunate sufferers?

Sir J. Griģģ: I should be sorry to create an unfortunate impression. It is an indication that hon. Members should not press an extreme case, but should be satisfied with the golden mean which the War Office always endeavours to pursue.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY PRISONERS OF WAR (PAY)

Major Peto: asked the Secretary of State for War whether Great Britain is still paying the full scales of pay of German and Italian prisoners of war; what this costs at the present time; and what proportion of prisoners are working.

Sir J. Griģģ: As the answer is necessarily rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Following is the answer:

German and Italian officer prisoners of war continue to be credited with the pay of their rank in their own Forces in accordance with Article 23 of the Prisoners of War Convention. German medical and other protected other ranks are paid in accordance with a special


agreement with the then German Government, the pay of their rank in the German Army. In either case the amounts which the officers and other ranks concerned are allowed in fact to spend are strictly limited.

All Italian other ranks receive pocket money pay in accordance with a reciprocal agreement made with the Italian Government. Italian co-operators receive higher rates of pay which vary according to rank and with the nature of the work on which they are employed.

I am unable to give an accurate statement regarding actual expenditure on pay for prisoners of war at the present time without much detailed inquiry. The expenditure will be noted among the claims to be referred by His Majesty's Government against Germany. Thirty-five per cent, of the Germans in the United Kingdom are working and over 98 per cent. of the Italians.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR

Mr. Graham White: asked the Secretary of State for War if he can make any further statement with regard to the incidence of tuberculosis among returned prisoners of war, including the numbers in military and civilian hospitals, respectively.

Sir J. Griģģ: Three-quarters of the prisoners who have returned have been examined by Mass Miniature Radiography and the rest will be examined when they return from leave. 294 have so far been found to be suffering from tuberculosis. This is about three in every 1,000. 158 have been admitted to civil sanatoria and 136 are in military and E.M.S. hospitals awaiting admission.

Mr. Graham White: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has any in formation later than that of 29th May as to the number of British prisoners of war still unaccounted for.

Captain Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for War if all British Commonwealth prisoners of war liberated by the Russian armies have yet returned to this country, and, if not, how many are still unaccounted for.

Sir J. Griģģ: Since the beginning of this year close on 168,000 British Commonwealth prisoners have reached this

country or their country of origin overseas. This is nearly 3,500 more than the figure I gave on 5th June in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox). There are still some prisoners in parts of central and southern Europe occupied by the Soviet Forces but figures are not available. Arrangements are being made for their transfer westwards to areas in British and American occupation.

Captain Gammans: Have representations been made to the Soviet Government to supply lists of the names of these prisoners of war, in view of the fact that the war has been over for more than a month?

Sir J. Griģģ: There certainly have been representations. I do not think it is a very hopeful line of country to ask them to supply lists. The representations have been in the main, if not entirely, pressure to send the prisoners back to our lines.

Sir Joseph Nall: How many are there still unaccounted for in the official records?

Sir J. Griģģ: I do not think my hon. Friend can have read the answer that I gave last week. I referred to that and suggested that it is impossible to give exact figures.

Captain Duncan: Has my right hon. Friend the complete co-operation of the Americans in cases where it is easier geographically to go back to the American lines?

Sir J. Griģģ: That is already arranged. There is complete co-operation between the British and the American authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAZI LEADERS (PRISON TREATMENT)

Colonel Viscount Suirdale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give an assurance that all Nazi major war criminals, such as Field-Marshal Goering, who are in Allied hands, are now imprisoned in ordinary prison cages or other prisons and not allowed the facility of house arrest; and whether he will arrange that no special facilities, such as the right to have special food provided for them, will be allowed.

Sir J. Griģģ: I understand that the answer I gave my Noble and gallant Friend on 5th June about such prisoners in British hands applies to those, such as Goering, held by the American forces.

Viscount Suirdale: Could my right hon. Friend elaborate that answer? Is Field-Marshal Goering in an ordinary prison cage and getting ordinary limited rations the same as other prisoners?

Sir J. Griģģ: I understand that the earlier answer applies. I cannot get myself into the position of having to explain in great detail and to defend the conduct of our Allies in other zones.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Where is Ribbentrop?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Arthur Heneage: On a point of Order. To whom should questions be addressed about prisoners in Allied hands for which we are not responsible?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a difficult question for me to answer. I do not think it has been put before, but there is a general rule in the House that the House and Ministers do not go into the affairs of other countries. I would prefer not to say more than that on this point of Order at this time.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it your Ruling that matters concerning the war at large, the war in the Far East and the treatment of prisoners as a whole, are not matters for the consideration of hon. Members, whether the prisoners are in American, Russian or British hands? Is not the conduct of the war integrated?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a difficult point and I certainly would not lay down the position with regard to it. I do say, however, that there is a difference between those prisoners in our control and those who are in the control of another country.

Sir J. Griģģ: May I add to what you have said, Sir? Whenever hon. Members ask for information about events and happenings in an Allied zone under an integrated command, I try to get information for them, but I cannot possibly get myself into the position of defending the conduct or even explaining the conduct of the soldiers, forces and officials of another nation, whether Russian or American.

Mr. Gallaeher: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the high Nazi criminals are in cages, and do they get ordinary prison diets?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think we have got rather beyond the question. The next Question in the name of the Prime Minister I think might be postponed until later.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Post-War Credits

Mr. Hynd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to consider release of post-war income tax credits in special cases of hardship.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): As I have explained on more than one occasion, I am afraid that I cannot see my way to make exceptional arrangements such as the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. Hynd: Will the right hon. Gentleman not give consideration to this point, in view of the very small number of very special cases, for example of old age pensioners who are trying to make a meagre living, and cannot avail themselves of the necessary equipment because this money is tied up?

Sir J. Anderson: My answer is based on a consideration of practicability. Once you started admitting special cases, there would be no end to it.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the inspired statements about the reduction in Income Tax if a Tory Government should come into power, why cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he is going to do about post-war credits?

Sir J. Anderson: I have not been inspiring any statements.

Mr. Shinwell: Then are we to understand that the statements which have been appearing have no foundation whatever?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We have got far enough from the Question.

Forestry Policy

Mr. Storey: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now state the measure of the expansion of forestry which the Government propose to undertake.

Sir J. Anderson: I cannot at present add anything to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture said about future forestry policy when he introduced the Forestry Bill to the House on 4th May.

Belgian Francs (Exchange Rate)

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the fixed rate of exchange of 176 Belgian francs to the £ is to the disadvantage of our troops as compared with the civilians of that country; and if he will take steps to have this rate of exchange altered.

Sir J. Anderson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for the City of Chester (Major Nield) on 4th October last. The reply to the second part of the Question is in the negative.

Mr. Edwards: Does the Minister not think it is unsatisfactory that our troops in liberated countries should be in a position where they cannot afford to sit down to a decent meal which the liberated people themselves can afford?

Sir J. Anderson: If the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to look at the answer to which I referred, he will see it is there explained that many steps are in fact taken to ensure that our troops do not suffer on account of the rate of exchange, by reason of the facilities in canteens, clubs and hostels, where they can get meals on reasonable terms.

Capital Issues Control (Limit)

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the raising of the limit from £10,000 to £50,000 of the amount free from control by the Capital Issues Committee, he will consult with the Industrial and Commercial Corporation with a view to ensuring that loans below £50,000 should only be provided by it when the objects of the firm or company seeking the accommodation accord with the Memorandum of Guidance to the Capital Issues Committee (Cmd. 6645).

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. The exemption limit of £50,000, like the previous limit of £10,000, is of general application whatever the source of the proposed borrowing. If the decision to raise the limit is justified, as I think it is, it should

apply Irrespective of the source of the borrowing and cannot therefore afford any ground for seeking assurances from one particular lender.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer recollect that when I asked that these financial corporations should exercise hot merely financial considerations but also national considerations he told me that I need not trouble about that because it would be attended to by the Capital Issues Committee? Now he has abrogated it by increasing the limit from £10,000 to £50,000. It makes a considerable difference. As that is so, he ought to insist that these financial corporations should take into account national as well as financial issues.

Sir J. Anderson: I recollect very clearly what I said on that occasion. What I said was that, in order to ensure that capital resources should be directed into the most useful channels, it would be necessary in the future, as in the past, to rely on the machinery of the Capital Issues Committee. That machinery remains intact It is perfectly true that I recently announced an increase in the previous limit of £10,000 to £50,000, but I do not think that affects the principle. As regards these institutions, as I explained at the time, they merely represent the provision of further facilities for borrowing but they do not involve any new principle; they will not be under the control of His Majesty's Government, and I am sure they will take a very public-spirited view of their functions.

Mr. Pethick - Lawrence: Are they allowed to take a public-spirited view? Are they not constrained to take merely a financial view?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir, I do not think I said anything to justify that impression. I would like to make the position perfectly clear. They are not under any obligation to take a purely financial view. Indeed, I explained that the larger of the two corporations, which is the only one so far established, would be so constituted as to ensure that it would take a broad view and not a harrow financial view of its responsibilities.

Mr. A. Bevan: What steps will the Chancellor of the Exchequer take to en-


sure that they do take a national view of their responsibilities; how are we in this House to ensure that they do so, and to whom are we to address our Questions?

Sir J. Anderson: I think the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that hon. Members can address Questions to Ministers only on matters for which those Ministers take responsibility, What I have said, and I repeat, is that, so far as Government control is concerned, it is to the machinery of the Capital Issues Committee that one must look. That machinery remains intact. If existing arrangements are found not to be working entirely satisfactorily there is nothing to prevent us making adjustments so far as experience may suggest necessary.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We have had some very long answers on this Question, and I will now call the Prime Minister's Question No. 45.

Oral Answers to Questions — OPERATIONS, FAR EAST (BRITISH FORCES)

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the announcements made of the size of the U.S. military and naval forces which are to be brought to bear against Japan, some equivalent statement can be made as to the scale on which British assistance is to be given in the war in the Far East.

Sir J. Anderson: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is not prepared to say anything more at this moment than that we shall do our utmost.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: Is it not time we ceased hiding our light under a bushel? The American Government say what they are doing; why cannot we?

Sir J. Andersen: That is a matter which is always kept in view.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER OF DEFENCE

Mr. Dingle Foot: asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government that the post of Minister of Defence should continue to exist after the war; and whether it is intended that there should be a separate Ministry.

Sir J. Anderson: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister suggests that the hon. Gentleman put this Question in the next Parliament, if he should happen to be returned thereto.

Mr. Foot: I will certainly do so if the party to which I belong should happen still to be on these benches.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENERAL ELECTION (SERVICE UNIFORMS)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Prime Minister whether Servicemen who are released and on re-settlement leave during the election will be entitled to take an active part in political work.

Sir J. Anderson: This Question deals only with the limited category of Servicemen on release leave under the release scheme. While on such leave they are technically serving members of the Forces. I should like to take this opportunity of announcing that, as a special measure for the purpose of the forthcoming General Election, all serving members of the Armed Forces, whether regular or temporary, and whether men or women, including, of course, the class referred to in the Question, will be permitted, if they are wearing plain clothes, to speak at political meetings, sit on the platform, or otherwise take an active part in political proceedings in any part of the country. This concession will apply in the United Kingdom only, from 15th June, the date of Dissolution of Parliament, until the polling day in the constituency in which the activities are undertaken. Further, bona fide candidates, who are serving or have at any time since 3rd September, 1939, served in the Armed Forces, whether former Members of Parliament or not, may wear uniform while taking part in political activities in the United Kingdom whether in their own constituencies or elsewhere, during the period I have mentioned. The necessary instructions will be issued by the three Service Departments as soon as possible.

Mr. Driberģ: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this concession, which is precisely the concession that some of us asked for on the occasion of the Debate on the Army and Air Force Annual Act, will be extremely welcome?

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's statement is that Servicemen who are released for political purposes during this Election can wear uniform? Is that not in conflict with the statement that I believe was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, that candidates seeking election could not wear uniform?

Sir J. Anderson: This decision which I have announced is a very important one. It is the result of very careful consideration; it is authoritative, and overrides all previous statements on the subject. I think it will be found, when hon. Members look at it in Hansard, that it is quite clear. Candidates who have served in this war may wear uniform throughout their candidature. In regard to others, persons who are not candidates, they may take part, during the period of the Election, in electoral activity, but in plain clothes only.

Mr. Shinwell: If the House is now in formed that all previous decisions go by the board and that a new decision has been reached at the last minute without offering facilities to debate this important principle, may I ask my right hon. Friend why this privilege—because it is a privilege to wear uniform—should not be available to any person who is engaged in the Election?

Sir J. Anderson: I think I made it clear that there is nothing to prevent Members of the Forces from attending meetings in uniform if they do not intend to take part. Members of the Forces, if not themselves candidates, may take part in Election proceedings in plain clothes.

Mr. Palmer: As this answer has gone wider than my original Question, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he will clear up one small point—whether or not candidates who served in the Forces may use photographs of themselves in uniform?

Sir J. Anderson: That, surely, will be in accordance with the spirit of what I have stated. Candidates putting themselves forward as Servicemen may wear the uniform of their calling.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order I must ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether you will afford an opportunity for hon. Members to move the Adjournment of the House on this vital matter of principle.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I will have to consider that later. As the question of a Motion for the Adjournment has been raised, I think we should now go on to the next Question.

Mr. A. Bevan: On this particular matter, might I ask who is responsible for reaching this decision?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, I cannot allow that.

Mr. Bevan: We have not finished with it yet.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: May I put a question, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to elucidate one part of the Minister's reply which was ambiguous?

48. The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Guy:

To ask the Prime Minister if it has yet been decided to give members of local authorities serving in the Forces an opportunity of release in order to continue as candidates at the forthcoming municipal elections.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Guy.

Hon. Members: No.

Sir J. Anderson: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Am I correct in supposing that you have called Question 48?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I called Mr. Guy.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: May I call your attention to the fact, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the hon. Member did not himself rise in response to your invitation?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was under the impression that he did. If he did not rise, he forfeits his right to a reply.

Sir J. Anderson: Question 48—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Walkden: On a point of Order. Can I draw your attention, Mr, Deputy-Speaker, to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is now out of Order? The Question has not been called, and we do not want an answer.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman does not want to hear the answer. Now, I think, is the time to deal with the point of Order raised by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell).

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a matter of definite and urgent public importance, namely, the change in Government policy, on the wearing of uniform by candidates during the Election.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot accept that. Under Standing Orders it is laid down that:
On the day appointed for concluding Business of Supply, the consideration of that Business shall not be anticipated by a Motion of Adjournment, and no dilatory Motion shall be moved on proceedings on those days, and proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order.
I should point out that there will be other opportunities to-morrow and the next day.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not obvious that the facilities for raising a matter of this kind are very much curtailed to-morrow and the following day, because the House is going to be prorogued, and, if this matter is to be debated, it may require to be debated at some length? Surely, in all the circumstances of this hurried and drastic change in Government policy, we ought to be permitted the opportunity for an adequate Debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid I am bound by the Standing Orders laid down by the House, and they must be kept.

Mr. Bowles: On a point of Order. Surely the position is, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you have not turned down this matter on the ground that it is not a matter of urgent public importance. You say it might interfere with Business under the Standing Orders. Surely, if a sufficient number of Members on this side of the House, or on the other side, rise in their places you could fix a time now for this matter to be debated.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Chair has no opinion where it is guided by a Standing Order so definite as in this case.

Sir Benjamin Smith: Would it be right to say that this is a dilatory Motion under the terms of the Standing Order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I gave a Ruling exactly as I read it out from the Standing Orders. We cannot possibly deal with this Motion to-day. I would remind the House again that there are opportunities on the next two days.

Mr. Silverman: Further to that point of Order. Would it be in Order to move the suspension of the Standing Order to enable the House to discuss this matter?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member cannot do that. I thought he would have known that he would have to give notice of such a Motion.

Mr. A. Bevan: May I ask the Prime Minister, in view of the seriousness of the statement made, and in view of the fact that it lies within the province of the Government, whether the Government them selves will move the Adjournment of the House now, in order to permit the House to discuss the matter? May I further ask if the Government will not permit the House of Commons to express an opinion on this matter, and if other ranks and other persons taking part in the Election wear their uniforms, what kind of disciplinary action will the right hon. Gentle man be able to take, in view of the fact—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is getting outside a point of Order.

Mr. Bevan: I did not raise this matter as a point of Order—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have given my Ruling on that point of Order, and having given it, it is my duty to adhere to it.

Mr. Bevan: I was not raising this as a point of Order, but as a matter of procedure.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is why the hon. Member is not in Order.

Mr. Bevan: Why not?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: For various reasons the hon. Member is out of Order.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I very much regret that owing to public duties I have not been in my place throughout this discussion, therefore I am not certain whether you. Sir, have given any Ruling on the subject which I venture to raise. Is it not true that this matter can be fully debated to-morrow and the day after on the Consolidated Fund Bill?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is what I suggested just now.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: When we were anxious to put supplementary questions


on this matter, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you stopped us, because you were considering the point of Order which had been raised. We refrained and now we have lost our chance.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I had two or three minutes in which to consider the point of Order, and I then gave my decision on it.

Dr. Summerskill: Can we now put further supplementary questions?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Lady disapproves of my submission, there are ways in which she can make that clear.

Mr. Silverman: I wish to remind you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that on a recent occasion when we were considering another Standing Order about the taking of his seat by a newly-elected Member, Mr. Speaker permitted a Motion for the suspension of the Standing Order to be taken that day, without notice. I therefore ask you. Sir, whether that has any bearing on the Ruling you gave that a Motion to suspend the Standing Order on this occasion would be out of Order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think I am right in saying that on the occasion to which the hon. Member refers it was a matter of practice. This is a Standing Order.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: In view of this change of policy—for it is a change of policy which has been announced, and the right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Secretary of State made it quite clear, not more than a week or two ago, that candidates could not wear uniform—may I ask the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am in a very difficult position. We cannot possibly, as I understand the proceedings of the House, keep going back to the Question which was previously answered.

Mr. Maxton: On a point of Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, in what form the Government will bring forward their new legislation to amend the Army Annual Act, to make this legal during the period of the Election.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of Order for me to decide. The matter can be discussed to-morrow.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: You have told the House, Sir, that this matter can be de-

bated to-morrow. I was going to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the Secretary of State for War or the Prime Minister himself will be here to explain why what was explained as the law about a fortnight ago, is now not to be the law?

The Prime Minister: It is evident that this matter requires to be debated. Full opportunity will be provided to-morrow or the next day at the convenience of the House. It is also evident that it cannot be debated to-day.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order. If this matter is concerned with the Army and Air Force Annual Act how can we, on a Consolidated Fund Bill, discuss legislation?

The Prime Minister: On that point of Order—if that is what we are on now—it is a matter of regulation and not of legislation.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: With regard to the point of Order put by the hon. Member of Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), will you advise us, Sir, on how government of the people, by the people, for the people—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot possibly tell how the Government will bring in their proposal.

Mr. Shinwell: I return to my point of Order—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have given a Ruling—

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have given my Ruling—

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order. I am putting a point of Order to you, Sir. Can we have an answer—

Major Randolph Churchill: On a point of Order—[Interruption.]

Mr. Attlee: The Prime Minister has said that this is a matter that must be dealt with in a regulation. I want to ask whether that regulation is to be brought before the House, and whether it will be open to Debate.

The Prime Minister: I can only say that there will be a full opportunity for debating this matter to-morrow or the next


day on the Consolidated Fund Bill, and there could be no stronger protest which hon. Members could make than to vote against that.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. George Griffiths: Play the game straight.

The Prime Minister: I beg hon. Gentlemen not to wear such disagreeable expressions. Does the House really suppose that I would take a line like this—[Hon. Members: "We do."]—if I thought it was opposed to the sense of the House? It is to be debated to-morrow and we shall profit by Debate; and it may be we shall come to a good arrangement, but personally I have formed a view, which my Government have adopted, that there would be difficulties of uniform, in bickerings between the floor and the platform. There is all that to be considered. At the same time my object in this whole business is to give fair play.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask whether it would be in Order to discuss the matter? I understand from the Prime Minister that the Government are to take action in this matter by making a new Regulation. I am not sure what this Regulation is and perhaps we could have it explained. Is it an alteration of King's Regulations or what is it, because my difficulty is this that we meet to-morrow [Hon. Members: "Speak up."] Cannot hon. Members keep quiet? The question is whether the House will have an opportunity, when we are discussing the Consolidated Fund Bill, of passing comments on this Regulation which, as I understand, the Government have not yet made, and the nature of which has not been described to us. I think that on a matter of this kind, with which the House is vitally concerned, we are entitled to know in what form the Government propose to take action and from you, Sir, on what occasion it is possible for this to be discussed and if necessary voted upon.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have had no notice of this matter, but the Debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill is very wide, and I am sure that it is not outside the ingenuity of the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition to come to some understanding whereby it can be discussed properly to-morrow. Having said

that, I think we should go on with the ordinary Business. There is another statement to be made, and we have spent a long while on this matter.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, but there can be no point of Order for the minute.

Sir Percy Harris: I—[Hon. Members: "Sit down."] I did want to help the Government.

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In my position I have to look after the interests of the House and not of the Government.

Sir P. Harris: rose—

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. [Hon. Members: "Order,"] I have not said a word on this yet. On a point of Order. [Hon. Members: "Order."] This is something different from anything yet. Please, a point of Order.

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot consider a point of Order now.

Mr. Gallacher: I am asking you to grant me a point of Order. [Hon. Members: "Sit down."] I want to put an entirely new point of Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There can be no question of a point of Order.

BRITISH ARMY (REQUISITIONED PROPERTY)

Sir James Griģģ: rose—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Gallacher: I rise to a point of Order. My point of Order is this.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There cannot be a point of Order. I am calling the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Shinwell: What have you called him for? We do not want to hear him.

Mr. Gallacher: Surely, Sir, you will not deny my right to put a point of Order. Is it not possible for some of us to arrange that the Estimates be accepted without Debate and then go on to the Adjournment, when we could discuss this other point?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Not at this minute, but when we begin the Estimates. Sir James Griģģ.

Sir J. Griģģ: With your permission and by leave of the House—

Mr. A. Bevan: Before this statement is made, in view of the fact that statements of this sort are always an intrusion into Parliamentary time and are made by leave of the House, can you give us an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman is not to make a highly controversial statement now?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope he will not.

Sir J. Griģģ: rose—

Mr. Cocks: Am I entitled to move that the Secretary of State be not heard?

Sir J. Griģģ: rose—

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman has not the leave of the House.

Sir J. Griģģ: This is a statement which I undertook to make to the House before the House was dissolved on the subject of the release of requisitioned properties by the War Office in the interests of housing. At the peak the War Office held on requisition at least 80,000 properties apart from those used solely for storage. At the end of January this year the corresponding number was about 54,000. Of these about half were in the two classes which, as I have repeatedly said in this House, I regard as having priority for release. These are (a) small dwelling houses and (b) schools and colleges. Perhaps I should explain that the former class includes all houses with 12 rooms or less and also small residential flats. The other classes cover hotels, shops, offices, garages and so on which, however deserving in each individual case, clearly come behind the two priority classes in the national interest. From February to the present time we have been releasing small houses at the rate of 1,200 a month. I estimate that from now to the end of September we shall be able to release or transfer a further 7,800 properties of this class. I mention transfer as in certain cases properties released by the War Office are taken up by other Government Departments, for instance for housing men on repairing bomb damage and for other objects of national importance. During

the last, quarter of the year I hope to be able to release a further 7,300 small houses which would leave only 6,000 under requisition by the Army at the end of the year. The. First quarter of 1946 as far as I can judge at present should see the virtual disappearance of this class of property from our requisition list.
I ought perhaps to mention that in our barracks and camps the British soldier is still being housed on the austerity scale of 30 square feet per man. The pre-war standard was 60 square feet. Thus the soldier himself is being called upon for a considerable contribution to the housing problem and I am sure that hon. Members and the country will appreciate this.
The position as regards schools and colleges is that we had 670 at the end of January, and that by 1st June, 140 of these had been released. The process here follows the same general pattern as in the case of small houses, with the addition that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education provides me with lists of buildings whose early release he regards as most important from the educational point of view and that I try—with a fair measure of success—to derequisition these first or at any rate to give a firm date for their final release. Between now and September I hope to release a further 141 in this class and by the end of the year an additional 236 leaving only 153 still requisitioned at the end of the year.
Of the 27,000 buildings in the later priority classes we have since February been releasing 1,500 a month. This was at a somewhat higher rate than in the two earliest priority classes, but it represented a considerable release of properties in areas unsuitable, in the changed conditions, for accommodating troops in substantial blocks. From now on the rate will be rather smaller and certainly smaller than in the two priority classes. I estimate that we shall by the end of the year have given up a further 7,000 of these properties. Of course hon. Members will remember that strategic requirements cannot always be accurately estimated, so that troop movements may have from time to time to be retarded or accelerated, with consequent effects on demands for accommodation. But the contingencies are not likely all to be unfavourable. Anyhow, if the forecasts I have just given turn out to be correct we shall by 31st December next have released or transferred over


500 schools and over 33,000 other properties out of the totals of 670 and 53,000 respectively held by us on 1st February. Hon. Members will not need to be reminded that the process of enabling the owner to re-occupy his house is a complex one. In every single case there must be a check of dilapidations by both sides before entry can be given, followed by negotiation on the compensation payable. And hon. Members will realise that the number neither of my lands staff nor of competent persons available to represent the owner is unlimited. There is one further point. The War Office does not and cannot itself undertake reinstatement. It can only compensate. Owners therefore may not be able quickly to produce labour and materials to put their premises into a state fit for the former kind of occupation.
The House would, quite rightly, condemn me if I failed to provide for the accommodation of the Army in the United Kingdom during this transitional period. Included in our requirements are the needs of those returning to this country for release and to be re-furbished for the journey to the Far East. Every effort is being made to ensure that this is done in the most economical manner so far as keeping on requisitioned properties is concerned. I think the figures which I have produced to-day show that we are being successful. Anyhow I assure the House that no one will be happier than I when our commitments in accommodation for the Army can be met by the use of W.D. property only.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the houses of 12 rooms and under, still requisitioned, are empty?

Sir J. Griģģ: Not without notice.

Mr. Hall: Will it be possible for the owner to go in immediately a house is derequisitioned although he has not come to terms with the War Office as to the amount of dilapidations?

Sir J. Griģģ: That is a legal question. Legally, he cannot enter until there has been an agreed statement on dilapidations. What that means in practice I do not know: I dare say it is a matter of arrangement. I do not think that owners have had any difficulty in the vast majority of

cases in reaching an understanding with the War Office valuers.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Do I understand that the War Office are settling with the Ministry of Education about schools?

Sir J. Griģģ: Not settling. I have got a list of the schools which are wanted most quickly, and I try to give a definite date when they will be ready.

Mr. Glanville: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I had a Question down to-day about houses which have been occupied by the military authorities, in fact, for two years? Why continue to occupy them so long when they are not being used?

Sir J. Griģģ: The Question which the hon. Member asked to-day was whether they were being released. I told him that they were.

Major Leighton: Do I understand that the latest date for schools to be de-requisitioned will be during the first six months of 1946?

Sir J. Griģģ: I did not say that. I said that I hoped to be clear from the small houses in the first three months of 1946. I did not give a specific date for the schools, but the vast majority will have been cleared by the end of this year, and the others as quickly as possible thereafter.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility cease when they are de-requisitioned? In my area we have halls that have been de-requisitioned for months, but they are still empty, because we cannot get a settlement as to the repair of damage.

Sir J. Griģģ: I have this much responsibility, that there has to be an agreed statement of dilapidations between the owner or the occupier, as the case may be, and the War Department. In most cases those are negotiated very quickly. If both sides are litigious, it will not be done very quickly; and that would be to nobody's advantage.

Mr. Loftus: Do I gather that special priority in release will be given to the small type of house, of under ten or eight rooms, which is so much in demand?

Sir J. Griģģ: I think I have been saying that to this House on the average twice a week for the last three months.

Mr. Hicks: In view of the fact that there are small houses requisitioned by the Admiralty, the Air Ministry and other Departments, is there any co-ordination between the Departments, to see how many houses can be made available and whether it would not be better to put the matter under one Ministry?

Sir J. Griģģ: I should have thought the hon. Gentleman was aware that there was co-ordination, and that his late Ministry was in charge of it.

Mr. Hicks: Has the right hon. Gentleman made his statement entirely on behalf of the War Office, and not on behalf of the other Departments?

Sir J. Griģģ: It deals with the priorities in the hands of the War Office. It is very largely arithmetical in character. I can assure the hon. Gentleman—and I think he knows—that the statement of priorities is in accordance with the policy under which the Co-ordinating Committee and the Ministry of Works are operating.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Will my right hon. Friend look into the number of officers dealing with this matter in the different Departments, to see whether the number is adequate, in view of the fact that they are very much overworked?

Sir J. Griģģ: At the moment I am asked to keep on more military staff. I would like the opportunity of looking into that matter before answering specifically.

UNITED KINGDOM AND VICHY GOVERNMENTS (1940 NEGOTIATIONS)

The Prime Minister: I run great risks, I am sure, in asking the indulgence of the House to make a statement, but this statement is on a question which, so far as I know, has nothing to do with controversial policy. Yet it is important that it should be answered in a way which will bring it to notice abroad in a manner which is desirable. This statement is made in answer to Question 49, in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and Haddington (Captain McEwen):
To ask the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement on the negotiations which took place in 1940 between His Majesty's Government and the Vichy Government.

I think that it would be useful for me to give the House a brief account of the facts, in order to correct any misunderstandings which may have been caused by the very inaccurate reports which have been published on this subject. After the withdrawal of the French Ambassador from London in 1940, His Majesty's Government sought to maintain contact with Marshal Petain and his Ministers through less direct channels, in the hope of encouraging them to keep up a maximum of passive resistance to the enemy. To this end a series of messages were exchanged with the Vichy Administration during the autumn of 1940, through the British and French representatives at a neutral capital.
The object of the exchanges was to obtain assurances from Vichy that they would not surrender the French Fleet to the Germans, nor allow the Germans to obtain control of French overseas territory, nor themselves attack the French Colonies which had rallied to General de Gaulle.We explained that, if such assurances were forthcoming, we should be prepared to negotiate a modus vivendi whereby limited trade would be permitted through the blockade between Metropolitan France and the African territories under Vichy control. In the event nothing came of these proposals. The replies to our approaches were unsatisfactory, and it soon became clear that Vichy was too much under German duress to be able to give adequate assurances on the points in question, or to carry them out if given.
In October, 1940, an emissary from Vichy, who represented himself as acting on the personal instructions of Marshal Petain, got in touch with the British authorities, and was brought to London, where he saw me and the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax. This emissary did not, however, come with any specific mission, and the object of his visit seems primarily to have been to gauge the state of opinion in this country and the prospects of our continued resistance to the enemy. He brought with him no proposals for an agreement, and no agreement was in fact ever concluded with the Vichy Administration, either through this emissary or through any other channel. This reply which I have made has a reference to proceedings which are taking place in France against certain individuals.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make regarding the Business of the week, and when he will be able to make available to Members of the House the amendment to King's Regulations which, I understand, the Government contemplate making in respect of the wearing of uniforms at election meetings?

The Prime Minister: We shall ask the House to-morrow, before entering upon the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, to agree to consider Lords Amendments to the Water Bill and to the Requisitioned Land Bill. I am informed that these are of a purely drafting character. In view of the suggestions which were made on Business last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India will make a statement on Indian policy on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill on Thursday. This can be followed by a Debate if the House so desires. Then, this other question has been raised. I think it had better be discussed between both sides of the House, through the usual channels, to see how the wish of the House can best be met with the greatest convenience and the greatest effectiveness; because I have no other wish than that. As long as I lead the House, the wish of the House to discuss matters is my sovereign rule. I have no doubt that the House can be fully informed of the legal position even before the Debate begins.

Mr. Attlee: I am sure the Prime Minister will realise that what we all desire is to give an equal opportunity to all Service men to take their full part in their duties as citizens. We were not at all clear, from the replies which were given, whether a special exemption from King's Regulations was being given to candidates on account of sartorial difficulties, in respect of obtaining other clothing than uniforms, or whether there was to be a general relaxation for all ranks during the Elections. That is a matter on which we want some clarification. I agree that there may be some discussion through the usual channels, but I think that the House should be in possession of the Government's views before we discuss this subject.

The Prime Minister: I quite agree that this matter should be discussed through the usual channels, and it can be raised by any arrangements made between the two sides for this purpose. I am very anxious that it should be settled as far as possible by agreement. It is a very difficult question whether argument between people of different ranks in uniform is a good thing. On the other hand, if you say that nobody who is in uniform is to argue and that nobody may take part except in plain clothes, you throw a considerable impediment in the way of citizens who have no other dress but uniform.

Sir P. Harris: I have no doubt of the Prime Minister's good faith. I think that this matter should be cleared up before Parliament is prorogued. But I think that Parliament should see the new regulation. There will have to be some modification of the regulation. Perhaps we can see that to-morrow.

The Prime Minister: If my right hon. Friend's answer is read carefully, that will give a great deal of information.

Mr. Bevan: As the instrument of change will be an Amendment to King's Regulations, the House of Commons must see the actual change before it can form an intelligent judgment on what is going to be done. What is intended by the Government and what is actually done by the Amendment are not always the same thing. The Govenment have the advantage of us, because they know what the Regulation is: we do not know.

The Prime Ministers: This is not a Motion; it is a Parliamentary Question, and it is on the answer to a Parliamentary Question that the trouble has arisen. I think the House should be in a position to Debate the matter at the earliest moment, but I wish to make it perfectly clear that, even if the Government could command a majority by brute force, it is not the time when they would wish to do anything which could fairly be taken as turning the advantage to one side or the other. We might not be satisfied with the arguments on our intentions, but the House need have no fears.

Mr. Attlee: I entirely accept what the Prime Minister said. I have assumed that this decision, which is in such flat contradiction to what the Secretary of State said the other day, has been very fully considered, and as I have no doubt


that the necessary alterations to King's Regulations are already drafted and ready, we should like to have them.

Mr. Molson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is not the case that these Regulations are a matter of Prerogative, and that there is no need for any Parliamentary approval at all?

Hon. Members: Oh.

The Prime Minister: It is not wise to bring into Parliamentary discussion any question of collision between the Prerogative and the House of Commons.

Mr. Pritt: Is it proposed to make whatever alteration is made by altering Ring's Regulations or by an Army Council Instruction? If so, could the House have, at the earliest moment, either the Regulation and the Instruction that has been passed, or the one that is intended?

The Prime Minister: Now the hon. And learned Gentleman has got me.

Mr. Silverman: Can the Prime Minister say whether it is the Government's firm intention to stand by the discrimination between serving men according to whether they are candidates, or are taking an active part in an election otherwise than as a candidate, that has been stated already?

The Prime Minister: A great many hon. Members of the House, of all parties, have worn uniform in addressing meetings lately, and in the last few years, and I did not feel that we needed to take away from them, for the 17 days period, what they had enjoyed so long. On the other hand, I have a great doubt whether it would be wise to encourage altercations among people wearing uniform, between the floor and the platform. You might have a general on the floor and a private on the platform. It does strike me that that might raise an awkward position. On the other hand, if you say that no one must take any part in these meetings except in plain clothes, how are the many hundreds of thousands of soldiers in this country who have not got plain clothes—[Interruption]—they could obtain a suit if they wished—to play their part? My only desire is to do what is thought to be reasonable and fair. I gladly welcome a Debate in the House, which I will attend myself, in order to see what the feeling is, and I will do my utmost to have some form of the information about any legal aspect of the Regulation and so forth cir-

culated, if possible, officially to the House, and, if not, by special and extraordinary measures.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: May I ask the Prime Minister if he has considered this point? If this Regulation goes through in this form, it denies the right of a candidate's husband to wear uniform, while the candidate's opponent is allowed to wear uniform, which is my position?

The Prime Minister: Well, of course, hard cases do not make good laws.

Mr. Speaker: I understood that we were on a Business question, but we are now getting into a Debate. It seems to me that hon. Members questions ought to be on Business.

Mr. Bevan: May I ask the Prime Minister whether this decision that has been taken by the Government, and in which the right hon. Gentleman probably had a great influence, is his way of having his own back on the First Lord of the Admiralty in view of the bad advice he has been receiving, and in view of the fact that a general is putting up against him?

Mr. Shinwell: I would like to ask a question on Business. How was this decision reached? Did the right hon. Gentleman know anything about it?

The Prime Minister: As a matter of fact, I have thought a great deal about these matters, and I think I am the author of this change in that I brought it before the Military Department and then brought it before the Cabinet. I should be going too far to say that opinion was immediately and spontaneously united on the topic. I should welcome further enlightenment from the House in the course of the suggested discussion.

Mr. Mathers: Is the Prime Minister aware that the very laudable ideas he has expressed, in answers to these later questions, have been rather vitiated—

Major Randolph Churchill: On a point of Order. Is this a matter of Business?

The Prime Minister: Let the hon. Gentleman say what he has to say.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Now, sonny.

Mr. Mathers: Has not that laudable expression of ideas been rather vitiated, by what has taken place since the beginning of last week?

Major Randolph Churchill: Hear, hear.

Mr. E. Walkden: I wish to raise a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of Business. Over the week-end, from the Treasury and from inspired sources in the Government, a statement has been made that we, the hon. Members of this House, were to receive a statement about C.E.M.A. This statement has been given very great publicity, and we have been waiting for the statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The statement has been put out on the tape to-day, but we have had no statement at Question Time. When are we going to have it?

Mr. Speaker: This has nothing to do with a point of Order.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: According to an announcement made yesterday by the Minister in reply to a Question, a statement was to be made in this House. I have been waiting to see when the Chancellor was going to make that statement.

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with me; I do not control the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Report from the Committee of Public Accounts (with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices) brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 105.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to—

Finance (No. 2) Bill,

Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Bill,

Local Government (Boundary Commission) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Irwell Valley Water Board) Bill, without Amendment.

Warrington Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to confer further powers on the Mid Southern Utility Company with respect to their water undertaking; and for other purposes."—[Mid Southern Utility Bill [Lords].

MID SOUTHERN UTILITY BILL [Lords]

Read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BILL PRESENTED

NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) BILL

"to substitute for the Workmen's Compensation Acts, 1925 to 1943, a system of insurance against personal injury caused by accident arising out of and in the course of a person's employment and against prescribed diseases and injuries due to the nature of a person's employment, and for purposes connected there with," presented by Mr. Hore-Belisha; supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Donald Somervell, the Attorney-General, Mr. Peake and Mr. Peat; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered:
That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders No. 14, the Report of the Supplementary Vote of Credit, 1945, may be considered before or after a quarter-past Nine o'clock and that Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before a quarter-past Nine o'clock; and that if the first Resolution reported from the Committee of Supply of nth June shall have been agreed to before a quarter-past Eight o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at a quarter-past Eight o'clock by paragraph 7 of Standing Order No. 14, as modified by the Order of the House of 8th March."—[The Prime Minister]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [8TH ALLOTTED DAY] REPORT [11th June]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENT, 1945; NAVY, ARMY AND AIR ESTIMATES, 1945.

Resolutions reported:
That a further sum, not exceeding £36,271,562 be granted to His Majesty, to complete the stuns necessary to defray the charges for the following Departments connected with the Health of the Nation which


will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, namely:



£


Class V., Vote 1, Ministry of Health
11,601,234


Class X., Vote 6, Ministry of Health (War Services)
90


Class V., Vote 2, Board of Control
150,825


Class V., Vote 16, Department of Health for Scotland
2,402,233


Class X., Vote 18, Department of Health for Scotland (War Services)
90


Class X., Vote 4, Ministry of Food
90


Class V., Vote 9, Ministry of National Insurance
22,117,000



£36,271,562"

[For details of remaining Resolutions, see Official Report, nth June, 1945; Vol. 411, c. 1375£1382.]

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH

4.11 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): To-day my duty is to give the House a brief review of the health of the nation and of the work of our health services. That is a duty customarily laid upon the Minister of Health when the Health Services are chosen as the topic for a Debate of this kind. I cannot, in introducing the Debate, be unaware of the widespread public interest in the proposals for a comprehensive National Health Service. But to discuss these proposals to-day would clearly, I think, be out of Order. Indeed, only a few days ago, hon. Members on the opposite side were very insistent that this rule of procedure should be adhered to. All, therefore, that I think it will be proper for me to say—and I hope it will be in Order and the House with expect me to say this much—is that the discussions promised in the White Paper of 1944 have been proceeding actively, and, in so far as they have related to matters requiring legislation, they are now largely completed. This, too, I may make clear, that, in the discussions, there has been no question of any departure from the fundamental objects of the comprehensive service proposed in the White Paper and no question of diminishing the fullness of its range or departing from the principle

of its universal availability. The discussions have been concerned with methods and with questions, not of scope, but of the administrative structure. But to describe our discussion on possible changes of method or structure would, I think, be out of Order, because that will be the subject of future legislation. This I may say—that the discussions have confirmed me in the belief that it will be possible to give effect to the great scheme foreshadowed in the White Paper in a manner which will command the general agreement of all those upon whose work it will depend.

Mr. James Griffiths: May I ask for your guidance and Ruling, Mr. Speaker? The Minister of Health, in opening his statement, has made reference to discussions and negotiations taking place between him and his Department and certain representative bodies outside, and, from what he said, I thought that a reference to them would be out of Order. It is the desire of hon. Members on this side of the House who will be taking part in the Debate to ask questions of the Minister and to express opinions about these negotiations. Will you, Mr. Speaker, say if that will be in Order?

Mr. Speaker: Of course, as far as the matters which the Minister is negotiating with anybody are concerned, he may not wish to say how far he has got in his negotiations. Any hon. Member may ask what has happened; that is perfectly in Order.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Did not the Minister make it perfectly clear that these proposals require legislation and is not a discussion of them out of Order altogether to-day?

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear exactly what the hon. Member said, and so I cannot give an answer.

Dr. Thomas: The Minister made it perfectly clear that the proposals to which the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) referred would require legislation. Would not that put them entirely out of Order to-day?

Mr. Speaker: If the Minister wanted to give any long statement as of proposed future legislation on the matter, that, of course, would be out of Order, and a discussion could not be allowed. The


hon. Member wanted to ask questions. There is no obligation on the Minister to reply to any questions which involve an answer which would be out of Order.

Mr. Willink: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you for further guidance with regard to this matter? The discussions have been going on, as indicated to the House, on the basis of a White Paper and with a view to legislation. I feel in some difficulty about going into a matter which in its very nature was precedent to legislation and was being carried on with a view to formulating legislative proposals. May I ask for your Ruling as to whether I can to-day go into legislative proposals?

Mr. Speaker: No, certainly not. That would be out of Order.

Mr. J. Griffiths: This is very important. Actually the position, as I recall it, is that the House was asked some time ago not to approve legislation, but to approve proposals embodied in a White Paper about which, in recent months, there have been negotiations. The House was asked by means of a Motion of the Government to receive and welcome the White Paper. It was understood that there would be negotiations. There have been negotiations, and what has taken place, or is alleged to have taken place, is within the knowledge of some of us, and surely, it would be in Order for us, having been asked to give approval to it, to raise questions on what took place in the negotiations and on how far they are departures from the Government White Paper.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: In view of the fact that the matter discussed in these negotiations has been widely circulated in this country—in fact 70,000 documents on the matter have been sent to doctors—surely, the time has arrived when the matter should be ventilated in this House.

Dr. Thomas: Is not this the Supply Vote for Health Services which are already in being, and not for future proposals?

Mr. Speaker: It will be in Order for hon. Members to ask any questions they like, but it is within the discretion of the Minister as to how far he answers them, having regard to legislative proposals, which are not in Order on a Vote of Supply.

Mr. Willink: There is much that the House will want to know regarding our general health services and there will no doubt be particular questions raised by hon. Members in the course of the Debate. The range of the subject matter of this Debate is extraordinarily wide and I can review only a few sections during the lime which I would wish to take. My hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will deal with points raised in the Debate, and also with the Scottish position. Mine must be only a brief and broad survey of our health chart during the war period. It is still an encouraging and a cheerful picture, with very few shadows; and, indeed, it is an astonishing story when one considers how much the civil population has had to endure during the last 5½ years. May I just mention a few of 'their handicaps:
A steady deterioration in their housing conditions, caused by loss of houses and damage to houses by bombing, stoppage of new building, lack of repair, and mass movements of population.
Air raids, black-out conditions, loss of sleep, over-crowding, over-work in many cases, queueing at shops and 'bus stops and very little proper holiday.
Food rationing, a diet nourishing, no doubt, but inevitably rather monotonous, home life broken up to a very wide extent, with constant anxiety for relatives and friends.
The man-power and woman-power of the country have been mobilised to the utmost limit up to a very high age level. Many more people have been working, particularly many more middle-aged women, and most people have been working longer hours and doing a great deal of part-time duty in addition. In many areas the civil population has been more or less constantly in the front line. I mention these things because they must be brought into any appreciation of our wartime health record. The health services have had to operate under very heavy handicaps. About one-fifth of the medical officers of the public health services have gone into the Forces; and almost one-third of our general practitioners, who are, after all, the first line of defence in the health services. Our public health institutions—including sanatoria, fever hospitals, hospitals for the chronic sick—have often been hard pressed, with serious shortages of nurses


and domestic staff. But I should like to pay a tribute to the general practitioner, who has had to struggle along doing two men's work and carrying many extra burdens. I think, for example, of the giving of all those certificates for priorities which were inevitable under war conditions. The general practitioners of the country have been among the most overworked men on the home front, and the country owes them a debt of gratitude. But I would also mention the hospital authorities, and particularly the matrons of our hospitals, who have carried on under the most serious difficulties and have done their jobs extraordinarily well.
One would have thought—indeed we did think—that the stage was set for serious happenings on the health front. But what did in fact happen? What is the position to-day? I should like to give the House a very broad picture and mention some of the lessons which, I think, we can learn from the experiences of the war. We have had no serious epidemic. Even the influenza virus has been kinder to us than it used to be in peace time. In six winters we have had only one influenza outbreak, and that was shorter and less severe than the kind we used to have before the war. The incidence of cerebro-spinal meningitis rose sharply in the early part of the war, but gradually came down again. Typhoid fever, another disease which increases under war conditions, has been less prevalent than in any pre-war year, and that in spite of all the damage to water mains and sewers; and in that matter we owe a very great deal to the skill and the energy of our water engineers. Generally speaking, infectious diseases have been less prevalent than in normal times, though I should mention one—there has been a marked increase in infective jaundice.
Turning to some of the statistics, the birth-rate has been rising Since 1941, and last year was the highest since 1925. The effective reproduction rate for 1944 is provisionally assessed at ·99, that is, within 1 per cent. of a full replacement standard. This is the first time that such a figure has been reached since 1922, though we must be careful not to judge long-term population prospects on what may be an abnormal war-time trend. Not only have more babies been born, but fewer have died. Fewer mothers are being lost in child-

birth; and I can summarise the steady improvement in the still-birth rate by saying that the chance of a baby being borndead is only three-quarters of what it was only six years ago. All the vital statistics for mothers and children are the best this country has ever known, and there is no doubt that, taking the situation as a whole, the health of the children of this country—including the school-children—has not only been safeguarded, but it has been improved. And the infantile mortality rate—which last year was 46 per thousand births, compared with the peace time record of 50.6 in 1939—is I believe, one of the most reliable guides to the state of the nation's general health.
As to grown-up people, the situation is not so easy to assess. The priorities for mothers and children have often been given at the expense of the general run of adults in the civilian population—milk, for example—and one would naturally expect grown-up people to suffer in health under the arduous conditions of life during the last five years. Yet there is no evidence that they have suffered to any appreciable extent. Of course there has been an increase in the amount of tiredness and minor ill-health—the lesser ailments, lesser from the doctor's point of view, but perhaps not always from the patient's. Most people are tired. They go sick more easily and they recover less quickly. That is only to be expected after going through so much for so long. Nevertheless, it is a great and undoubted fact that the nation has been spared the weakening of its all-out effort for victory which would have come if we had had serious epidemics or a general deterioration of health. We have succeeded in protecting the health of the nation and of the generation upon which the future of the nation depends. Again as to grown ups, in spite of the increase in minor ill-health I can give this consolation, that the more serious troubles have been no more prevalent, and indeed deaths from many kinds of disease have declined during the war. It has been calculated that civilians of all ages are living at least as long as they did in peace time, even on a calculation which has included, during six years, deaths as a result of air raids.
I have referred to lessons we have learned and we have learned some very useful lessons during the war. We have learned, if I may use the Prime Minister's


phrase, that there is no better investment than putting milk into babies. The vitamin supplements, the milk and meals in schools, the National Milk scheme—these things must have had something to do with the improvement in the health of the children. I feel sure that they have had a great deal to do with it, and we have learned a great deal, too, about the practical application of what has been learned in the field of nutrition. The Government's food policy has been one of the main factors in the maintenance of health standards, and there has been a very high level of employment and high purchasing power over the country as a whole. We have proved also that soundly based health services will stand up to severe strain and that good health services are a very good investment for the nation. We have developed public education in the matter of health, and we have greatly extended both the range and methods of rehabilitation to speed recovery and to reduce disablement. We have organised a blood transfusion service, which has saved thousands of lives in war, and can save many more every year in peacetime as well. And as a result of our experience with the Emergency Hospital Scheme we know that hospitals of all types can work together for the common good, with goodwill and splendid results.
The last thing I would ever desire to do is to sound complacent in these matters of health, and having broadly painted the brighter side of the picture—and it is much the bigger part of the picture—I should like to refer to the other side, and to two dark shadows. I would say first that the mortality figures for the first quarter of this year do not maintain the improvement which we have been able to record in previous years. There was a slight set-back in the infant and general mortality rates.
Perhaps further progress in the sixth year of war was too much to expect. We had had, perhaps, the heaviest stresses and strains in South Eastern England and we had had a cold winter after three mild winters. Certainly, this is no time to relax our efforts. We must be vigilant, and everything possible must be done, as quickly as resources become available, to improve the conditions which bear upon the people's health and to strengthen our organisation for dealing with ill-health. When I say that the health of the nation

has been good, I mean, of course, that it has been good in comparison with what it was before the war. We are very far from suggesting that it is as good as it should be, or can become, and, indeed, in my Department, we feel that the real importance of the fact that progress has been made during a period when we might well have been expected to lose ground, is that it only shows how much more we ought to be able to do when conditions are more favourable.

Earl Winterton: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend, before he leaves that point about the first quarter of this year, whether the relevant improvement in the birth rate compared with the death rate—that is to say, in regard to the increase in population—was or was not maintained? Has he the figures?

Mr. Willink: I have not the figures by me at this moment but I will try to see that my noble Friend has them before the end of the Debate. We must not think only of vital statistics and we do not; we are trying to find out more about the extent and the nature of all those other forms of ill-health, particularly minor ill-health, which are very important to those who suffer from them and to the general health and the productive power of the nation. These lesser ailments are not shown in our records, which cover only a limited number of illnesses, and, in many cases, they do not come to the notice of a doctor at all; but we are trying to find out more about them.
Of the two dark shadows of which I want to speak, the venereal diseases come first. These show a slight decrease last year over the previous year, for the first time since the war. We are hoping that this is the turn of the tide, but new cases are still more than double the pre-war figure, and this remains a serious problem. We are maintaining the widespread campaign of education which was started more than two years ago, and I believe that this campaign continues to receive the approval of the great majority of the public.
The second problem—I think the House will all know of what I am about to speak—is tuberculosis. It is a question which is causing concern to hon. Members in all parts of the House, and I say frankly that for some time it has worried me more


than any other problem in the field of public health. It is not a question of a rising death rate—the number of deaths last year was practically the same as the pre-war low record of 1938. That is a remarkable situation in view of the conditions we have had, but there is a substantial increase in notifications of new cases as compared with before the war, and our problem is to provide accommodation speedily for those who need sanatorium treatment. We have the beds but we cannot get sufficient staff—nursing staff and domestic staff. I referred earlier to the heavy handicaps under which the authorities responsible for sanatoria have been working—my hon. Friend who is to follow me is familiar with that matter—and other institutions such as those which care for the aged and the chronic sick. The general woman-power situation is tighter than it has ever been, and the needs of the sanatoria are more pressing than ever. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour's problem is, and has been for a long time, to get sufficient nurses and domestic workers for the sanatoria at a time when there are so many other urgent needs which may seem to women and girls to have even stronger claims on their services, though, in fact, there is no work more worth doing than the restoration to health of men and women suffering from tuberculosis. My right hon. Friend is making his appeal in a new campaign addressed to both trained nurses and women without previous nursing experience, and I should like hon. Members to give it their support by every means in their power.
That leads me to say a few words about the general problem of nursing staffs. Even before the war there was a shortage of nurses and, during the war, in spite of a very substantial addition to the total number of nurses, the demand has steadily increased and it has become increasingly difficult to maintain quite essential services. The end of the European war will mean the disbandment of certain services employing nurses—such as the first-aid post service—and the reduction of others but, on the other hand, married nurses and other nurses with domestic responsibilities may now be unable to continue to nurse and there is an urgent need for more nurses to enable hours to be reduced.
The recommendations of Lord Rushcliffe's Committee have done very, much to improve and standardise the conditions and the remuneration of the profession, but all the problems have not been solved. The hours of work, still too long in many cases, can be reduced effectively only when we have more nurses. The more material amenities, the defects of many places where nurses must work, cannot be brought to a high standard everywhere without building on a scale which really is impossible at the moment. The staffing position is especially difficult in the tuberculosis service, in the mental hospital service and in the chronic sick hospitals, but there is a shortage of midwives as well as of nurses. One is partly a consequence of the other, because the vast majority of midwives are recruited from the ranks of State registered nurses, and the rising birth rate increases our problem.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has been advised by a National Advisory Council representative of the nurses and the midwives themselves, of the voluntary hospitals, and of the local authorities. That Council has extended its scope now to consider welfare and training so far as they may affect recruitment, and its advice is now available also to me and to my Department on matters that fall under my responsibility. We have made every effort to post nurses to services where they are most needed, including a requirement that newly-qualified State-registered nurses must serve for a year in one of the fields where shortage is very special, but we see the need for nurses increasing rather than diminishing. Many more are wanted, to meet both our current needs and the additional demand that will occur under the comprehensive health service, and any encouragement to recruitment which hon. Members can give will be most welcome to myself, because the building up of an adequate and effective service is a vital need if the health and welfare of the country is to be what we wish.

Captain Duncan: Can my right hon. and learned Friend give figures of the number of nurses required?

Mr. Willink: I will try to get a figure for my hon. and gallant Friend; I would not like to give it impromptu.

Earl Winterton: I apologise for asking another question, but will my right hon. and learned Friend, in giving consideration to this question, realise that one deterrent to nurses going into hospitals is that owing to the appalling lack of domestic labour in hospitals large and small, nurses have to perform domestic work? Will he bring that to the attention of the Minister of Labour?

Mr. Willink: Indeed, that matter is one which I have had very closely in my mind, and one which I have brought to the notice of the new Minister of Labour and frequently to that of his predecessor.
There are, I think, four other subjects on which I should like to touch shortly. The first is diphtheria immunisation. I ought to say a word about this because our campaign has been most successful. There is much still to be done, but there have been new low records, both of cases and of deaths, in each successive year since the immunisation campaign first got under way in 1941. The number of deaths last year was less than one-third of the pre war average, and the number of cases only just over half. For every three children dying of diphtheria before this campaign, only one is dying to-day. The number of cases notified last year was 28,000 below the pre-war average and 12,000 less than the previous low record. That progress is all the more remarkable when one takes into account the very severe diphtheria epidemics which have been spreading throughout Europe during this period. I have asked the local authorities to make a special effort this year to increase the level of immunisation. We have had enthusiastic co-operation already from local authorities, doctors, teachers, nurses, health visitors, and voluntary bodies such as W.V.S., the Red Cross and St. John. However, I do not believe it is yet realised that more children have been killed during the war by diphtheria than by the bombs. The figures are just under 9,000 deaths from diphtheria and about 8,000 as a result of the air raids. This is a powerful enemy but we have here an opportunity to win one of the great victories. If the great majority of children under 15 were immunised, instead of just over half as at present, and if every baby were protected as a matter of course at one year old, then we could get rid of diphtheria as an epidemic disease.
Let me deal next with what might have been a very serious matter indeed—typhus. When the Allied Armies swept over Germany there was a new danger, the danger that typhus might be imported into this country. Doctors throughout the country have been on the look-out for possible typhus cases since 1942, when the disease was prevalent in various parts of the Continent and in North Africa. A special warning was sent to medical officers of health then, and it has' been renewed recently. In 1942 my Department formed a special panel of consultants with experience of typhus, and the services of these consultants are available in order to assist diagnosis in any part of the country. A vigilant watch has been kept throughout the war at ports and air ports, and medical officers have done a tremendous amount of hard work in maintaining a close supervision of those who have newly arrived in the country and have been notified by the port officers as possible contacts. I should like to pay tribute to the way in which this vitally important work has been done. Twenty-one cases of typhus have, in fact, been diagnosed in this country. Fourteen of these are prisoners of war repatriated from Germany, and seven are medical students who were among the 100 volunteers who went for special duty in Belsen and other camps.All these cases were promptly isolated, and I am glad to be able to tell the House that no secondary cases whatever have occurred. Nor has any death occurred. Apart from these imported cases, there has been no case of louse-borne typhus in this country.
I feel the House will be interested to hear a letter which I received only a day or two ago from Field-Marshal Montgomery with regard to the work of those 100 young men. I am glad to be able to tell the House that all the seven to whom I have referred are out of danger. This is the letter:
The work of the 100 medical student from London Hospitals, originally recruited for Holland and flown out to Belsen, has been so outstanding that I must write you this personal letter of gratitude.
It was perhaps to be expected that they should be eager to help the victims of such atrocities, to suffer new experiences and to meet medical problems, but what was so gratifying was the great sense of responsibility and high discipline that they showed. Perhaps it was inter-hospital rivalry or just a natural esprit de corps, but the results were so good


and the effect on their fellow workers so great, that they may all be proud of their work during this month. Of their medical work I am not in a position to speak, but their influence on the camp and on the sick was there for all to see.
To the deans of the London Hospitals I wish to express our gratitude and my assurance that these boys have not lost, but rather gained in depth of experience and knowledge of humanity, by this month's work.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) B. L. Montgomery,
Field Marshal.
I should like to say something about rehabilitation, because I do not think it is generally realised how much this has been developed during the war in hospitals within the Emergency Medical Service. The House has been concerned, through legislation introduced by the then Minister of Labour, with the great question of industrial rehabilitation and resettlement, but, of course, everything that is done in this field must depend upon what is done in the hospitals in the form of medical rehabilitation. Successful rehabilitation needs a full partnership of patient, doctor and employer. The House may be surprised to know that more than 11,000 patients in Emergency Medical Service hospitals are now taking daily courses of remedial exercises. In addition, 20,000 are attending hospitals daily for special exercises and remedial games. Of these 31,000 receiving rehabilitation, 15,000 are taking part in some form of occupational therapy. I think the House will agree that these figures are an impressive indication of the large measure of progress which is being made. Since my Department made a special survey in 1943 with the object of extending these facilities, the number of hospitals providing rehabilitation for their patients has increased from 150 to 300. The great majority of Service sick and wounded receive their medical rehabilitation in E.M.S. hospitals. More than 250 doctors have been given special training, and for hospitals handicapped by lack of accommodation—a very serious difficulty—the Ministry have provided 34 prefabricated buildings. Conferences have been held throughout the country for leaders of industry, personnel managers, welfare officers and industrial medical officers, to explain the whole process of rehabilitation, and the part which industry has to play in the resettlement of patients.

Dr. Haden Guest: Can the Minister say whether the rehabilitation cases are all rehabilitation after some form of physical injury?

Mr. Willink: Most of the cases to which I am referring concern wounded men, but I am glad the hon. Member has given me the opportunity of making it clear that the process of rehabilitation is not concerned merely with the results of injury. There are many surgical and other conditions where the rehabilitation we have in mind, as forming an essential part of the health services of the future, must be included. We shall not relax in this matter. The Ministry of Health will retain their rehabilitation department and we shall endeavour to encourage rehabilitation as an integral part of the health services of the country.
There has been a significant development during the war of health education—and a new interest in the preventive approach to health. In encouraging this development we have had the valuable support of the Ministry of Information, the Central Council for Health Education, the B.B.C., the newspapers and the women's magazines. I am glad to say that health, rather than disease, is becoming news, and it is being realised that there is drama in prevention as well as in cure. There has been an increased demand for Health Educational Films for showing in factory canteens and to audiences in the rural areas. I think I shall have the support of all Members in all parts of the House when I say that this is an important wartime advance which I trust will not be lost in more normal times. We cannot make progress towards a healthier Britain without the backing of sound, instructed public opinion, and a wider and deeper knowledge of the proper care of personal health, and particularly the care of children.
Before I close I must say a few words about the part—a noble part—which the Emergency Hospital Scheme has played especially in the treatment of wounded men from North-West Europe. My Department undertook responsibility for all British Army casualties on arrival in this country. For the first time in our history, provision had to be made to receive casualties in England direct from the beach and the battlefield, until the Army could set up hospitals in Normandy. A few hours before the invasion, nearly


1,000 doctors, nurses and students were moved, with complete secrecy, from London to the coastal hospitals. And in the event the whole scheme worked most smoothly. Between D-Day and VE-Day, tha number of casualties from North-West Europe who passed through E.M.S. hospitals was 160,000. In the same period the hospitals in Greater London and the South-East treated more than 20,000 flying bomb casualties. Many of the hospitals were damaged by bombs. I think the House will agree with me that doctors, nurses, and all members of hospital and ambulance train staffs, can be proud of their share in this great campaign. Very careful planning was required to prepare for the invasion. As soon as the possible ports of entry were known, arrangements were put in hand: but alternative plans and considerations of security made it necessary to extend these preparations considerably beyond the actual ports and area which were ultimately involved. The ports used from D-Day onwards were Gosport, Southampton and Portsmouth. On the 23rd October the main port of disembarkation was changed to Tilbury. The original arrangements included the provision of three different types of hospitals. There were, first Coastal or Port hospitals at or close to the ports of disembarkation, for the reception of patients unfit to travel. These hospitals contained over 1,200 beds. The second type consisted of Transit Hospitals, corresponding in function to casualty clearing stations, reached from the ports by road or by a short railway journey. These contained over 7,300 beds. There were, finally, Home Base hospitals in which patients were retained and treated to a conclusion. Home Base hospitals consisted of the larger and more important hospitals in England, Wales and Scotland, to which casualties were taken by ambulance train from the Transit Hospitals. A very large number of beds were available in Home Base hospitals for the purpose, because some weeks before D-Day admission of ordinary civilian patients had been restricted to those in need of immediate treatment.
Provision was also made from the start for the reception and distribution of airborne casualties brought back from the Continent in empty transport planes to three aerodromes in the neighbourhood of

Swindon. The general scheme for the reception and treatment of these casualties was similar to that for sea-borne casualties, with hospitals corresponding to port hospitals for those unfit to travel. The remainder of the casualties were, however, transported to Home Base hospitals direct by train, no intermediate use being made of transit hospitals as casualty clearing stations.
With the collapse of Germany, Service patients of another kind came under the care of the E.M.S.—liberated British prisoners of war, together with numbers of civilians released from enemy hands. Most of them were evacuated from the Continent in the same way as battle casualties, but many were sent to hospital from the reception camps where they were found to be in need of hospital treatment. Special forms of care were of course needed owing to malnutrition and other results of prison life.
All this work has been dome by an organisation unique in our history. Never before have the voluntary and municipal hospitals been welded together into an organic whole, working together under the regional and central direction of medical officers of the Government while preserving the internal autonomy of each hospital and the clinical freedom of the medical staff. Never before have the leading medical and surgical specialists placed themselves at the disposal of an organised medical service, and by their dispersal up and down the hospitals of the country spread their special knowledge amongst die medical profession as a whole, to the great benefit of the civilian population in general. And never before has it been possible on a national scale to separate out the patients requiring special treatment for special conditions—head injuries, facial injuries and burns, neuroses and so on—and to send them to centres set apart for them, where the most skilled staff and the best equipment are available.
I have taken, perhaps, too much of the time of the House but I hope hon. Members will feel that it was right and due that this story should be told and that they will agree that much credit is due to many for the health of the nation.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: Perhaps I ought to begin by offering a word of consolation to the Minister, for I believe that during his speech I heard the effects


of "electionitis" in his throat. I think we ought to be profoundly grateful that ever since the beginning of the war successive Ministers of Health have been able to give us a report on the health of the nation which has been a magnificent tribute both to our people and the quality of the social services which we have built up in recent years. To-day, the Minister has been able to carry us one year further and to tell us that the health of the nation has been maintained despite the anxieties, worries and other things, associated with the war, which have beset our people for so long. There are many reasons for this, but I hope everyone will note that substantially we have been able to maintain our position on the health front because of the social services which we built up during the inter-war periods and during this war, and from which we are now reaping our reward. I hope that will be remembered, if there are any people waiting around at the end of this war with axes to destroy the social services; I hope it will be remembered if any proposal comes forward for setting up other May Committees.
For five and half years our people have been geared up to the most supreme effort in the whole of our history, and I want to express what is felt by many, that perhaps the dangerous stage on the health front is yet before us. It comes when the war is over. The war in Europe has ended, and already people are feeling a mood and spirit of relaxation after the enormous efforts they have made during the past five and a half years. We do well to remember that at the end of the last war Europe was swept by an epidemic which we called influenza, and that epidemic was responsible for more deaths than were caused by the war itself. Next winter the whole of Europe will be in a very serious position, with a grave shortage of food and coal. There are many people, doctors and experts having experience of the end of the last war, who feel that during the next 12 months, and particularly during the winter months, we shall face a most serious situation with regard to the health of the people.
I am concerned about the possibility that this situation may be accentuated and aggravated by the very regrettable reductions in rations. We all understand the reasons for which it has been neces-

sary to make these reductions, but I have had very many representations from my own trade union, and I feel sure that the Minister of Fuel and Power has also received similar representations, expressing deep concern about the effects upon heavy workers of these further reductions. I ask the Minister of Health to take note of these representations. Those hon. Members on both sides who are connected with the organisations of the heavy industries, where the work calls for great physical effort, are very much disturbed about the possible effect of these reductions in the sixth year of war. Although I appreciate the reasons, I wonder whether the time has not come for the matter to be considered in relation to the need for safeguarding the health of the people. I urge the Minister of Health to consult with the expert advisers in all the Departments concerned to find out what can be done. The aim has been in the case of heavy workers and others to make up for the rations by the extended provision of communal meals, but I regret to say that there are large numbers of our people who do not take advantage of those meals, and therefore the problem has not been completely met by the communal provisions as they now are. The whole programme ought to be looked into again.
The Minister referred to the social services that have been built up during the war. I want particularly to press for the continuance and expansion of the splendid services set up to provide extra food, and food of a special kind, for mothers and children. I hope also that the provision of war nurseries will be continued. There has been a tendency to think that now the war in Europe is over the war nurseries can be disbanded, and I am afraid that some of them have been closed down. I hope the Ministry of Health will encourage the local authorities to keep the nurseries open. During the last two or three years, with the increased call upon women to go to work—a need which will continue for some time—the war nurseries have played a distinctive part and have made a big contribution towards the maintenance of the health of the children of the country. I regret that this is a disposition on the part of some people to think that the need for the nurseries is now less pressing and that they can now be closed. I ask the Minister to encourage the local authorities to keep them open, and I hope they will be helped


financially. I hope that some of this work will be made a permanent feature of our social services. The other day, while on a visit to the North, I was able to see a delightful war nursery and to learn of the splendid contribution these nurseries have made during the war.
I want now to refer to one of those diseases which the Minister described as still being a darkening shadow—tuberculosis. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my country has a frightfully bad record in this respect. Some time before the war, in a published list of the counties and county boroughs of England and Wales, 12 counties were put on a black list, and the five counties heading the list were in Wales. That disease is, I think, part of the price we are paying for bad housing, overcrowding and lack of fresh air and good food. It is a poverty disease. Its continuance is a reminder to us that we have not solved by a long way the problem of poverty in this country.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Is not the hon. Gentleman exaggerating? It is not altogether a poverty disease. People who are quite well off suffer from tuberculosis.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member knows very well that once a disease begins there are no barriers. He knows that the latest figures and studies by Mr. and Mrs. Titmus prove clearly, in regard to tuberculosis and other diseases, that the incidence is greater among poverty-stricken people. I thought this was so well established that there was no need to argue it even with the hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Russell Thomas). I heard with concern the Minister's statement that the figures for tuberculosis for the first quarter of this year are beginning to show an upward trend. Even during the war we more or less held our own. I am disturbed about the increase in the figures. It is a matter of prime concern that we should do everything in our power to prevent the disease, and when it has not been prevented, to ensure that early treatment is available, because all of us who have any kind of experience in dealing with this problem know that if the disease is to be cured at all, one of the essential things is to get hold of the patient very quickly and give early treatment.
This brings me to the question of sanatorium treatment and hospital treatment in Wales, about which I want to say a few words and offer one or two

suggestions. The whole of this work in Wales is done by the Welsh National Memorial Association, and the local authorities have agreed to pool their resources and work together in this way. It is an example of the co-operation which I hope we shall have in a very much wider way in this field in the days to come. The Association, like all other local authorities dealing with this matter, is seriously hampered by difficulties, most of which have been increased seriously by the war. Reports which I have seen recently from the Association give some very disquieting facts. For example, I find that on 12th May of this year there were still 763 on the waiting list, and the Association's medical advisers take the view that the waiting list would be greatly increased were it not for the fact that the Association's representatives hold their hand in making recommendations for admission in order not to do the patients more harm than good by telling them that they have been recommended for admission and then finding that they cannot be accepted.
The Association is also seriously concerned about the plight of Service men and ex-Service men, Mid believe that the situation calls for special and drastic action. Already there are some 450 Service men and ex-Service men occupying beds in the Association's sanatoria, and there are 157 Service men and ex-Service men, including repatriated prisoners of war—I ask the Minister particularly to note that—who are on the waiting list. I hope that something will be done urgently to deal with this very serious situation. I think we ought to pay specially urgent attention to the plight of the repatriated prisoners of war who are waiting for admission to sanatoria because they have contracted tuberculosis.
There is another disease which is very much like tuberculosis—silicosis. There is a terrible incidence of silicosis in my area, and the situation is really becoming tragic. In South Wales there are 2,000 waiting to go before the medical board for certification. In one colliery in my native valley there has been one workman certified every day this year from 1st January to date. That is a terrible story. Let me tell the Committee what happens now. Generally speaking, a person begins to feel that his chest is getting tight and begins to cough. He goes to see his own


doctor. The miners' organisation have arranged for these men to be examined by X-ray specialists. The X-ray specialists advise as to whether the men ought to go before a board or wait for some further time. Eventually they go before the board. By that time they have ceased work. After going before he board, they either get a letter stating that the board refuses to certify them or they get a certificate. That certificate is a certificate of doom. The day it come it means, for most of the men, that life is finished.
There is one thing which I have felt for some time ought to be done. I appreciate how difficult it would have been to do it during the war, but I urge that it should be done now. When a man gets a certificate, it has become second nature for him to think that he is finished and there is nothing to be done about it. I would like these men, before they get a certificate, and immediately they cease work on the advice of their own doctor, to be sent to some institution like a sanatorium for a period of three or six months, where they could get rest, fresh air, good food, and their health could be built up. I believe that is essential from a physical standpoint, and from a psychological standpoint it would be of immense value. We are beginning to find traces of this disease at a very early stage, and men are therefore leaving work before they reach the terrible stage in which there is nothing left for them to do but to go on coughing until death releases them. We are now getting them away from work earlier. One of the things we must do is to induce in the men a feeling and belief that they can fit themselves for a new life and that the disease is not the end of everything. At the present time, when they are certified, they do not go to hospital or to a sanatorium. Nobody bothers about that at all. All the men feel, when the certificate comes, is that it is a certificate of death. I hope that the Minister of Health, in association with the Minister of Fuel and Power, the Medical Research Council and the new research station which is being opened, will look at that aspect of the matter and give serious attention to it. I hope something will be done about it.
Let me say a word again about sanatoria, and their accommodation and this waiting list of 763. I discovered from figures provided by the Welsh Memorial

Association that, despite this waiting list, there are 298 beds vacant because of the shortage of nursing and domestic staff. One of the things the war has taught us is the value of the woman who does the drudgery at home and in institutions. We used to use the word "skivvy." The skivvy is coming into her own. We are beginning to realise how important she is and that we cannot do without her. I hope in the future we shall realise that this wonderful service of work of domestic servants is entitled to a far better standard of life, and of prestige in our life, than it has had before. They have been at the bottom of the scale, but we are finding out that we cannot get on without them. A noble Lord referred in an interjection to the appalling shortage of domestic servants. Why is it appalling? There was no appalling shortage before the war because there was no alternative employment, and the reason why there is an appalling shortage now is because there are other jobs. I hope no one is looking forward to the day when domestic servants will be freely available again because of unemployment. I hope we shall realise that we are not entitled to domestic service unless we provide a standard of life and the prestige to which they are entitled. There is a great shortage of domestic and nursing staff in sanatoria, and this is perhaps the most difficult of all.
It is not merely a war-time problem, though it has been aggravated during the war. Before the war the problem of getting nurses and domestic staff for sanatoria was a serious one because of a view that is prevalent particularly amongst the mothers. It is the mother that you want to convince. If you want a girl to enter a sanatorium as a nurse or as a domestic servant, you have to convince the mother, and the mothers now are really frightened that if their girls go to a sanatorium the chances of being caught by the disease are very high. What are we going to do about it? I think that one of the things in planning our long-term programme is to make provision by which nursing and domestic staffs of sanatoria work fewer hours and, secondly, that they do not live in the institution but outside. I am certain that that is essential. I lived for 10 years very close to a tuberculosis hospital. I know the frightful difficulty about getting domestic and nursing staff in that place. It was an old mansion built by a famous personality in the last


century, set amongst the mountains, judged to be very suitable as a hospital, several miles from the nearest village and many miles from a town. To ask them to go there was to ask them to sacrifice something. I believe we have to shorten the hours and increase the wages and, beyond all, to provide living accommodation outside, so that they go to work in the hospital and then come clear away from it. Both from the physical and the psychological standpoint that is very essential.
Now may I say a word about finance? The Association's call upon the local authorities in Wales for the next five years is increased by £158,000 per annum. The rate incidence on the average in Wales for the T.B. service alone is a shilling in the pound. In Merthyr Tydfil it is 1s. 3d. It is twice the average rate charge or the sanatorium T.B. service in England and it is becoming a very serious burden. I hope that when we give consideration to the future of local government, and to the financial relations between local authorities and the central Exchequer this will be borne in mind. Unless something fundamental is done about it we stand in danger of a breakdown of local government in ten years. The financial burden is becoming more than the local authorities can bear.
I want to come back to the problem with which the Minister began—the negotiations which have been taking place between him and representatives of the British Medical Association. Some time ago a White Paper was submitted to us by the Government outlining proposals for the establishment of a National Health Service. We had a very interesting and informative Debate and we agreed unanimously to a Resolution welcoming the proposals and approving them in general terms, and we hoped that in a very short time we should have a Bill implementing them. We were told that there were to be consultations and negotiations. When we have had Motions welcoming these White Papers and approving their general principles and have been told by Ministers that there are to be discussions and negotiations, we have been under the impression on all sides that the negotiations were to be about matters of detail and that, once we approved the principles, particularly the structure, that was a committal by the

House and that any negotiations or consultations afterwards were to be about how the principle should be applied and the structure operated, and not about whether it was the right structure nor whether they were the right principles. If we are to set up a National Health Service there must be consultations, but the House is the final authority and it is for the House to decide. We did decide. The Government asked us to commit ourselves to the principles of the White Paper and to the structure in the White Paper. I believe there has been a departure from the committal of the House in these negotiations, for they have not been negotiations about details or about how the structure would be applied or how it should be modified. It is clear that there have been in these negotiations fundamental departures from the principles of the White Paper. This seems not to be negotiation. It has been capitulation. The Minister has not negotiated with the B.M.A. He has given in to them. When there are negotiations it is important that both sides shall have a clear idea of what they have agreed to do. I have negotiated with coal owners, whose representatives have had to report to their colleagues, and I have had to report to 150,000 men. I have said, "Before we leave this room let us get it perfectly clear what we are submitting, you as the owners' representatives and we as the workmen's representatives."

Mr. Willink: I was a little troubled when the hon. Member repeatedly used the word "negotiations." I think it is very necessary to bear in mind that the type of matter that he has just been discussing is something to which the word "negotiation" is perfectly appropriate, because agents are there acting on behalf of two bodies which desire to reach an agreement. I, however, have always used the word "discussions." I have not sought binding agreements. It is for Parliament to decide what the form of the service will be.

Mr. Griffiths: We will not quarrel about the words "negotiations" and "discussions." The important thing is that, first of all, the Government come to us, put certain proposals before us and ask us to approve them by a Motion which they table. They then go to the B.M.A. and put before them proposals which are fundamentally different. That is a letting


down of the House—a betrayal of the House. I used the word deliberately. Let there be no mistake about this. When we have had discussions and submitted them to our two sides we must agree on what we have decided. Listen to what the B.M.A. say in a circular to their members—from the heads of the trade union to the members of the trade union:
Recommendation A.—That the Association, though it regrets that the Government have not found it possible to accept the Association's proposals in to to, welcomes certain fundamental changes in the Government's proposals.
There is a circular from those who have met the Minister and had discussions with him upon the scheme already submitted to the House, approved by the House in principle and in structure and without our authority or assent or without even telling the House of Commons, submits proposals to them which are fundamentally different. That is not discussion or negotiation. It is capitulation. In other words, the future health service of the country is settled, not as between the Government and the House of Commons, but as between the Minister and the British Medical Association.

Dr. Russell Thomas: On a point of Order. Is it in Order to discuss the Government's health proposals on a Supply Day? I think you, Sir, have given a Ruling on the matter.

Mr. Speaker: We are not discussing the proposals. The hon. Member said that he was talking about a memorandum from the B.M.A. which said that fundamental changes had been made. That is not discussing legislative proposals.

Dr. Thomas: I submit that the hon. Member's Statements have nothing to do with the subject matter of the Vote.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may make any statement he chooses. I cannot rule that this is out of Order because the Minister may not feel able, under our Rules of Order, to give a full reply.

Mr. Griffiths: The charges I make are based on this document, which is a copy of a circular sent by the B.M.A. to their members, in which they say that the Government have submitted to them proposals which are fundamentally changed from the proposals submitted to the House. That is my charge, and I want

to ask questions of the Government, because Parliament and the nation are entitled to know the answers. How do the Government square this with their manifesto? Are they promising one thing in their manifesto to the country and another thing to the B.M.A.? Do the present Government stand by the White Paper submitted by the last Government? If not, what are the changes they propose? Is it true that in submitting these fundamentally different proposals to the British Medical Association, there was an assurance that, if the members accepted them, the Ministry of Health would press them on the Government? That is what we are told has happened. There are doctor friends of mine who tell me that that is the basis on which they have been asked to decide on these new proposals, which Parliament has not seen and has never been told about. These proposals are a complete departure, and they mean that there will be no comprehensive National Health Service, but only a botched-up panel system. They are proposals which will not implement the proposals of the White Paper. We are entitled to ask the Minister to tell the House and the nation whether the Government stand by the proposals for a National Health Service embodied in the White Paper, and, if not, what changes they proposed to the British Medical Association and what are now the proposals by which the Government stand.

5.32 p.m.

Sir John Boyd Orr: In rising to take part in this Debate, I crave the indulgence of the House. I understand it is one of the many pleasant features of this House that new Members who attempt to speak for the first time are granted special indulgence, and I ask for it because I have no experience in making political speeches. The discussion so far has been largely on matters concerning the treatment of disease. I want to make a few observations on the much more important question of the prevention of disease and to consider some of the bearings of the principles of preventive medicine on present-day economic problems.
The question of the prevention of disease is quite simple. We should regard health as the natural and normal state of human beings, and we should regard


disease as something abnormal. Most of the diseases which at present afflict all classes of the population are diseases which could be prevented. The two great aggressors of health are inadequate food and inadequate housing. When I refer to the adequacy of housing, I do not mean only the houses themselves but hygienic houses in an environment free from endemic disease and safeguarded, as far as it can be, from epidemic disease. Psychological maladjustment causing fears and anxieties is also a potent cause of disease. If you consider health you will find that it is directly correlated with the incidence of these factors.
Take the average length of life of the population, which is the best indication of the health of the poorer classes, and you will find that health, is proportionate to the adequacy of food, housing and social adjustment. In New Zealand, a country in which there are practically no slums and no malnutrition, and in which there is social security, the expectation of life at birth is nearly 70 years. In the smaller democratic countries in Europe—Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Holland, where there are few slums and the standard of the working-class is fairly high, the expectation of life is 63 to 65 years. In England, where there. are slums, malnutrition and other effects of poverty, it is only 61 years. In Scotland, where housing and poverty are worse than in England, the expectation of life is only 57. There are other countries worse than Scotland. As we go down the economic scale, we come to South American countries, where the expectation of life is 40, and India, where it is only about 27. Life and health are directly correlated with the adequacy of the primary necessaries of life. We know that it is true from what we have done already in this country, and we have done a great deal in the last few decades. As we improve housing, tuberculosis and other infectious diseases decrease. The Minister of Health has abundant statistics showing that as we transfer people from slums to decent houses, these diseases decrease. In the same way, as food improves, health and physique improve.
I would like to refer to what has been done during the war in connection with food. When the war broke out it was essential that the fighting and working efficiency and the morale of the people should

be maintained. What, therefore, did we decide to do? We produced and imported as far as we could the foodstuffs needed to feed the people, and we rationed and subsidised the food so that everybody could get it. Special provision was made for mothers, infants and heavy workers. Thus the distribution of food was as far as possible adjusted to the nutritional needs of people. We produced for consumption and distributed according to needs, which should be the principle governing all matters concerned with the primary necessaries of life. What has been the result? In spite of the scarcity of food, while the wealthy classes have got less than before and have suffered much inconvenience they have not suffered in health. But the diet of the poorer classes has been levelled up, and the increased consumption of protective foods and the change from white bread to the national loaf with 85 per cent. extraction has led to a great improvement in the health value of the diet. Proteins, calcium, phosphorus, iron and all the vitamins, with the possible exception of C, has increased in the diet of the working class from 10 per cent. in the case of some, to 40 per cent. in the case of others.
What has been the result on health? We have not yet got all the figures, and it will take some years before we have all the data, but we have indications that there has been a definite improvement in the health and physique of the working classes. In Glasgow, boys of 14 are three-quarters of an inch taller and three lbs. heavier, on the average, than they were before the war. The condition of teeth is an indication of health. In Glasgow before the war only 18 per cent, of children of five years of age going to school had teeth without obvious defects; now the percentage is 45. The infant mortality rate is also influenced by the feeding. The two main causes of a high infant mortality rate are bad housing and bad feeding. In spite of the fact that housing is worse the rate has fallen to lower than what it was before the war. A well-fed mother means a healthy infant at birth and a well-fed infant has a good chance of survival.
There are many indications of that kind showing how an improvement of the dietary of the people is followed by an improvement of health. I suggest that if we brought up the level of housing and


feeding to the health standards which are well known, and we had an assurance of a sense of social security, we would prevent more than 50 per cent. of the disease which afflicts the working-classes. We would do more. We would add ten years to the expectation of life of children born to the working-classes, and they are the majority of the children in the country.
How quickly can we do this? Speaking as a fanner I know that we can do it with food quite quickly. We have increased agricultural production by 70 Per cent. during the war and we could increase production by another 70 per cent. if we had enough imported feeding stuff and the full equipment needed to make agriculture as efficient as agricultural science could make it; we could produce sufficient of the protective food to raise the diet of the whole population up to the health standard.
With regard to housing, I was appalled to read in the housing Debate how Members talked complacently about waiting 10or 12 years before we can complete a full housing scheme. Must we say to our returning soldiers that some of them may have to wait ten years before they get a house in which infants can be born in safety and children reared in health? They must have forgotten the enormous productive powers of modern science. In America, Canada and, I presume, also in this country, the capacity for production has increased by 100 per cent, during the war. They must have forgotten Pluto, the Bailey bridge and other great achievement of physical science in the rapid production of planes, tanks, guns and other munitions of war. If we attack the housing problem with the same united national effort and the same intensity of purpose as we attacked the munitions problem, we can provide for every family a decent house, with at least a w.c. in it, in half that time.
I will turn, to the bearings of the health problem on some economic questions. If we are going to produce houses in half the time that is usually mentioned, we must organise the resources of the country. That means a certain amount of control—and this is a difficult subject. There is a danger that controls may be retained beyond their period of usefulness. To Roosevelt's four freedoms we might add a fifth freedom—"freedom from filling up

forms." But any Government which removes any existing controls or fails to impose whatever additional controls are necessary to enable the full resources of finance, material and labour to be devoted first and foremost to providing the things that people need to lead healthy lives, should be regarded as an enemy of the people.
In the early part of the war, when we were talking so much about building a new and better world, there was a good deal of planning. Indeed, planning broke out like an epidemic of measles. We had planning for every aspect of life, for trade, for exports, for industry, for new cities, and so on. The difficulty was that we were planning in water-tight compartments as if trade or industry or export markets were ends in themselves. What we lack is a master plan into which all the piecemeal planning will fit. What should be the ultimate objective of the plans that we make? I suggest that the ultimate objective of all planning should be the welfare of the people, and obviously the first step is to provide the physical necessities for a full and healthy life.
In the past we have placed too much importance on trade. The wealth of the country does not consist in its trade, its industries, its exports, or the amount of foreign credits. These are only means to an end. The real wealth of a nation consists of the health, the character and the intelligence of its people, and the real test of the efficiency of a Government is the extent to which it can provide environmental and social conditions such that every child born in the realm can attain its full inherited capacity for physical, mental and spiritual well-being.
Supposing we organise for this great objective and devote all the resources of the State to it, we need not sacrifice other interests. If we are going to produce all the food we need to bring the national diet up to the health standard then in addition to all we imported before the war, as was said in a Committee in another place, we have need to increase home production of protective foods from 25 per cent. in the case of some to 70 per cent. in the case of others. America, with more accurate estimates than we have here, say they have to increase their protective foods from 15 per cent. in the case of some to 70 per cent. in the case of others; that is, to feed the people of


America and not for export. But agriculture cannot expand unless it has a great amount of industrial products. Many millions of pounds must be spent on agriculture in order to make it efficient. If to what is needed for agriculture we add all the industrial products needed for housing, furniture and other necessities the wheels of industry will be kept moving full speed and internal and external trade will increase. Our unemployment problem would disappear. That great man, Mr. Roosevelt, the late President of the United States, very truly said there are so many millions who have never been adequately fed, clothed and housed, that if we set out to provide these things there will be work for every man and woman willing to work. That is as true in Great Britain as in America.
If we set out to do this I think we will escape the frustration which came upon us after the last war, when we had children in the towns suffering from malnutrition when the land which should have provided the food they needed was lying idle, and when we had people in the country living in poverty while men in the towns who could have made the things they needed were rotting in unemployment. Men in the town and men in the country would all be fully employed, creating the new wealth needed to lift them out of their poverty and give them a standard of living which would enable their children to enjoy full health. Although that policy would bring prosperity in agriculture, industry and trade we ought not to do it for that purpose. This nation should do this thing because it is right. Twentieth century medical science offers this solution to some of the 20th century problems which to me appear to be insoluble by 19th century political and economic ideas.

5. 45 p.m.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: I have been a Member of this House for nearly five years, and this is the first time I have been fortunate enough to follow anyone making a maiden speech. To-night I must count myself fortunate in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, so that I may follow the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Boyd Orr.) I am sure we have all been interested in what he has had to say and we will all look forward to what he will have to say in the future. One good reason why I should return to this House

is that I want to listen to the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities. I offer my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman and would say to him that I think that most of us agree very much with what he said.
The Minister of Health made a speech which was a little difficult to understand. He said that as a nation we were tired; as a nation we had adequate but monotonous food. He pointed out the danger of some types of food being on the minimum side, and yet we were more healthy. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend, who mentioned diphtheria and typhus, if he has any information about the variation in diphtheria serum. I believe a suspected variation—I put it no higher than that—in this serum is one thing which holds people back from getting their children immunised. I know people who attend clinics, and they say, "Now we will get our child done; this batch is good." There may be nothing in this, but if it is a misconception it should be disposed of and it might increase the number of children who are taken to be immunised. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities spoke about prevention, and I think that we ordinary people may be allowed to criticise doctors and say with truth that we bank more on prevention than on cure. It is rather extraordinary that in the year which the right hon. Gentleman has reviewed we have had full use of the sulphur drugs and of penicillin—

Mr. George Griffiths: May I ask when we have had full use of penicillin? We have never had it yet.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: I think that that is a question which can be addressed to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Griffiths: But the hon. Gentleman said that we have had full use of it.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: There has been no difficulty in obtaining penicillin in my constituency. I believe it is now available to the civilian population. In spits of these new drugs, and in spite of the advance of science, people are not living longer and disease is still with us. That is where I agree with the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities that prevention is far better than cure. He said that good health was based on good food and housing; I would add that we must also be


kept reasonably warm. If we had been kept reasonably warm—and we have not been kept reasonably warm during the past 12 months—we might have had a better bill of health.
Several times in this House I have pleaded for ordinary, plain, unadulterated, vital foods. I do not depart from that one bit. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us something about duodenal ulcers. It is said to be a nervous complaint, but I would ask whether it is not due to some of these preserved foods that we are eating. It is a theory, and I would like to see some research made into it. Admitting that good health is based on good food, housing and reasonable warmth, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if all the precautions have been taken in this country for providing us with good food. He has pointed out how milk assisted the school children. I would also point out the extent to which that band of women, often unpaid and unnoticed, who go to clinics day after day and week after week, has improved the health of the children. The Minister of Food has given cod liver oil and orange juice and this has improved the health of the children, but ever since the war commenced we have known of methods for increasing the milk supply of which we have never taken advantage. I think the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities will agree that two articles of our diet are important—proteins and fats. In last night's evening paper once again I saw that the Germans are said to have produced wood food richer than beef steak. I have been laughed at in this House for advocating the production of proteins from wood and straw. One has only to look at Hansard. I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that if he will exert his pressure on the Minister of Agriculture and on the Minister of Food who rejected these proposals, we might increase our milk and egg supply. We are wasting some 2,500,000 tons of straw. These things do count, but it is almost impossible to get Government Departments to realise the possibilities of science.
With regard to the question of nurses and sanatoria, all of us who have had to deal with industry know that the only thing is to spread the period of infection and rest. I hope my right hon. Friend will weigh the words of the hon. Member

for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). These women who work in sanatoria with consumptive patients should have certain hours of work and of rest and fresh air. He said that this hospital and sanatoria treatment depends upon the humble man and woman who do the ordinary housework. There is one thing which might have gone wrong, and that is that at one time these nurses pursued these duties as a vocation, and now they expect to be paid. Good nursing, good homes, good food and good housing are essential.

6.0 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow him into the field of dietetics, but I propose to say a few words on nursing. May I apologise to the Minister for the fact that I may not be here to hear him answer my many questions, owing to the fact that the chairman of the Conservative campaign committee is giving a good deal of attention to me and my constituency, and I have to be there at about seven o'clock to-night.
May I say a few words on what the Minister described as the "black spots." I should say there are three black spots, not two, the dearth of nurses and the increase in the incidence of tuberculosis and venereal disease. First of all, the dearth of nurses. The hon. Gentleman touched upon a very important question, so far as nurses are concerned. He said that, unfortunately, women did not regard nursing to-day as a vocation. I must tell him that it is no good exhorting the modern girl to emulate Florence Nightingale. One must remember that that great woman had an independent income, which is a very important factor. Many people here talk about the conditions of nurses, but no one has said what, of course, is well known, but needs ventilating, that, in spite of the Rushcliffe's Committee's recommendations, the probationer nurse only receives £40 a year, or 15s. a week. A staff nurse receives £102 a year. The modern woman has changed. I am told by the employment exchanges that a domestic worker to-day, whatever her qualities, can demand £2 a week and her keep. Compare that with the probationer nurse who gets 15s. a week and is expected to devote 50 per cent. of her time to domestic work. The answer is there. Why does not the Government wake up to the problem and decide to


improve the conditions of the nurses? The other black spots are related. The Minister talks about the increase in the incidence of tuberculosis. We have a shortage of nurses with the result that tubercular patients cannot enter sanatoria. They stay at home in the overcrowded conditions which we all know about in these post-war days infecting the family. The distinguished Member who has just spoken said, quite rightly, that ill-health can be traced to overcrowded conditions. In these post-war days we have over crowded conditions plus thousands of tubercular patients. Is it any wonder that the incidence of tuberculosis has not decreased?
Now, with reference to venereal disease. I do not like to say "I told you so," but a few years ago, at the beginning of the war, when the Government introduced Regulation 33B, which provided for a certain supervision over patients suffering from venereal disease, I said it would not work. I said the incidence would increase, and to-day we have a sorry picture. The number of venereal cases in this country has doubled, and still the Government deplore the fact, but what action are they going to take? As regards statistics of diseases, I am sorry the Minister did not tell us the incidence of rheumatism in this country, because it is such a disabling disease. When the hon. Member said that the conditions of last year had aggravated certain diseases, I think it will be found that rheumatism is one of them.
I want to devote the rest of my time to what the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) has already raised, and which I raised on the Adjournment very recently—the document which has been circulated in this country embodying the proposals which the Minister has made to the British Medical Association. I have challenged the Minister in this House time after time, and I have persisted that he has made these proposals. The Minister has persisted that he has not made them and, in fact, he told me on the last occasion that he knew nothing about them. When I had the document here and read out to the House what was in it, the Minister said he did not know what document it was.

Mr. Willink: The hon. Lady must be very careful in what she is saying. If she

proposes to quote what I said, I should, prefer her to quote it accurately.

Dr. Summerskill: When I raised the matter on two or three previous occasions the Minister expressed complete ignorance of it. I leave the Members of this House to judge. They heard him, time after time. The fact is that the document exists and has been circulated to 70.000 doctors, and has now been discussed in the lay and medical Press. I read out to the Minister, the last time, the first paragraph of the document in which it said:
If these proposals are acceptable to the members of the British Medical Association, then the Minister will be willing to commend them to his colleagues.

Mr. Willink: The hon. Lady purports to quote words from the document without having it before her.

Dr. Summerskill: I think that is a little unfair. I had the document here the last time. It simply happens that I did not think for one moment that the Minister would deny the accuracy of the document which I quoted last time.

Dr. Morgan: I can let the hon. Lady have a copy of the document.

Dr. Summerskill: I will quote from the document kindly handed to me by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan). It says:
They are proposals which the Minister will be willing to put to his colleagues as soon as he knows whether they commend themselves to the medical profession.
Well, I ask the House!

Mr. Willink: The hon. Lady must realise that a moment or two ago she said I had promised to commend these proposals to my colleagues. She then quotes the document, in which the word "commend" is employed in the question whether the proposals commend themselves to the doctors.

Dr. Russell Thomas: On a point of Order. I believe this question has been raised with Mr. Speaker, and that Mr. Speaker gave a Ruling that the proposals referred to by the hon. Lady involve future legislation, and that references to these proposals should be very brief indeed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): As far as I can see, it is perfectly in Order.

Dr. Smnmerskill: I think the Minister and—if the word is not unparliamentary—his stooge, will agree with me, when I say—

Dr. Thomas: I object to the word "stooge" as being unparliamentary, and I must ask the hon. Lady to withdraw it. I will also ask the House to believe that I have never acted as a stooge to anyone, certainly not to the Minister of Health.

Sir Herbert Holdsworth: May I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether a Member is entitled to use that word in regard to another Member?

Dr. Summerskill: If I have offended the hon. Gentleman, and if the term is not sufficiently precise, I withdraw it. Mr. Speaker ruled that it was quite in order for us to discuss in this House certain matters which the British Medical Association had already put before its members. I want to ask the Minister whether it is correct that he has agreed todrop—the word "drop" is used time after time in this document—the introduction of health centres throughout the country. I know he will say we are going to have experimental health centres. That is a delightful defence. What is an experimental health centre? We might have one in Scotland, one in London, and one in Wales, and the Government will hope that that will satisfy those of us here who believe that there should be health centres in every congested part of the country. I understand in these proposals the health centres are going to be dropped, although when a questionnaire from the British Medical Association was sent to all the doctors in the country, a majority supported the scheme of health centres.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Further to the point of Order I raised a moment ago. The hon. Lady is now discussing the setting up of health centres, and so on, which are all future plans and nothing to do with Supply.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I agree it would be out of Order to proceed on this line.

Dr. Summerskill: Health centres have been discussed for 20 or 30 years, and those of us on this side of the House have been urging health centres for many,

many years. To suggest that during a Debate on health we cannot discuss health centres is absurd.

Mr. Deputy - Speaker: To-day is a Supply Day.

Mr. Willink: May I have your Ruling on this, Sir? The hon. Lady is seeking an answer from me as to whether the proposals in the White Paper, with regard to health centres, are still the proposals of His Majesty's Government or whether they have been modified, and, if so, in what direction. Any modification of the proposals in the White Paper with regard to health centres which would be consistent with the principles or purposes of that Paper would, I imagine, beyond all question, involve legislation. Will it be in Order for me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to answer such a question to-day?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is quite in Order to ask questions so far as the White Paper is concerned.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the fact that health centres are mentioned in the White Paper, I think I am in Order in referring to them. The Minister is clearly showing that he is trying to stifle discussion. I have never heard a Minister intervene on so many occasions.

Dr. Thomas: On a point of Order. May I suggest that the proposals in the White Paper are entirely concerned with future legislation and not with Supply?

Dr. Summerskill: It is quite clear—

Dr. Thomas: May I have your Ruling on that point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that the White Paper is concerned with policy.

Dr. Summerskill: It is quite clear that the Minister and his friends are not very happy about having this great betrayal ventilated before the Election. "Betrayal" was the word used by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). This is the second time in this century that the poor and the sick, the most helpless section of the community, have been betrayed by the conservative section of the medical profession. The last time we had a strong Minister, Mr. Lloyd George. This time I am afraid that the Minister has not only capitulated, but has run away; he has not only run away, he is even trying to stifle discussion in


this House, trying to prevent the progressive side of the House from pressing that the reforms in the White Paper should be implemented.
We have already heard from the Minister that the general practitioner is the first line of defence. The general practitioner comprises 75 per cent. of the medical profession. We had hoped that in our health centres the general practitioners would come together, would co operate, would exchange ideas and would gradually achieve a much higher standard of medical practice. Now the Minister suggests that the general practitioner should remain isolated. I know the general practitioner well. Most of them lead isolated lives, they are harassed, they are apprehensive as to the future. They have, unfortunately, to pander to the hypochondriac in order to pay their expenses. We had hoped that a new life would dawn for the general practitioner, that not only would he benefit but that his patients would also benefit. What has happened? This great reform, probably the greatest step forward promised in the White Paper, is to be dropped.
What of the voluntary hospitals? In the White Paper it is suggested that the voluntary hospitals land the municipal hospitals should be administered by one board, that the friction between municipal and voluntary hospitals should cease. That has gone. The voluntary hospitals and their associations are to remain. I see on the other side of the House many chairmen of voluntary hospitals. In thinking of voluntary hospitals we may be apt to think of our great London teaching hospitals with many hundreds of beds, but it must be remembered that of our 700 voluntary hospitals only 50 have 200 beds or more. Knowing hospitals very well, I say that the cottage hospital is an anachronism. What are the proposals of the Minister? These new proposals are designed to give the cottage hospital a new life, while continuing to deny them adequate staff. If they are carried on in the way they have been carried on in the past the general practitioner will still be allowed to undertake major operations. Those of us who know some of the cottage hospitals know full well that the innocent and ignorant public are often at the mercy of those who conduct cottage hospitals.
Another very important proposal in the White Paper was that newly qualified

doctors should be sent to those parts, of the country to practise where there was a dearth of doctors. We all know that in places like Hampstead and Bournemouth the population of doctors is very high compared to the lay population.

Mr. Willink: The hon. Lady has complained of my intervention, but I must remind the House that there was no proposal in the White Paper that any doctor should be sent anywhere.

Sir H. Holdsworth: Could you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, give us some guidance regarding this matter before we go any further? Very controversial questions are being raised. I am not objecting to that but they do more or less all involve legislation. As this is a Supply Day, shall we on these benches who do not agree with the hon. Lady on many of the contentions she is putting forward be quite free to discuss the whole of the question and answer the suggestions which she is making? Is she in Order in discussing things which involve legislation? I submit, with all deference, that we cannot deal with questions which involve legislation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would be out of Order to discuss the legislation required, but the proposals in the White Paper may be discussed.

Dr. Summerskill: I apologise to the Minister if that recommendation was not contained in the White Paper, but I think he will agree that it has been discussed and mentioned in this House and in this document—

Dr. Morgan: I will give the hon. Lady this document, even though I am against her.

Dr. Summerskill: My hon. Friend is only against me because he is on the Committee of the B.M.A. It is in the White Paper. This document has been very carefully prepared. It has three columns, in which are given the proposals in the White Paper, the recommendations of the B.M.A. and the alternative structure proposed by the Minister. The White Paper says:
The Board must also be able to require the young doctor, during the early days of Ms career, to give his whole time to the public service where the needs of the service require this.
What does the Minister say to that?

Mr. Willink: If the hon. Lady asks me to reply to that, I would say that it was made abundantly clear in the Debate on the White Paper, and has been made abundantly clear since, that the Paper did not propose a power to direct a young doctor anywhere. It was explained, if it needed explanation, by myself in opening the Debate, that the White Paper proposed for discussion, and modification if need be when the necessary legislation was introduced, that there might be cases in which, there being a shortage of doctors, a young doctor could not be authorised to take public patients and private patients as well. But no proposal was put forward by the Coalition Government for the sending of doctors about the country to places where they did not wish to go.

Dr. Summerskill: The Minister intervened just now because he said this question was not mentioned in the White Paper. I said it was, and I have read it to the House. I wish the Minister would inform himself more—that is his weakness—on what is a highly technical subject. It is proposed that doctors should be sent where the needs of the service require it. And this is the Minister's alternative structure, which is put to the B.M.A.:
the proposed requirement that all doctors proposing to enter practice in new areas must obtain the Board's consent would be dropped.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Again on a point of Order. This particular document from which the hon. Lady is now quoting is not the White Paper, but a document which is completely unknown to hon. Members. Is the hon. Lady at liberty to go on reading it in that it concerns future proposals?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understood the hon. Lady to be quoting from the White Paper.

Dr. Summerskill: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, these are extracts from the White Paper.

Mr. Willink: Is the hon. Lady telling the House that the last document from which she read was the White Paper? It is nothing of the kind.

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, the White Paper of February, 1944. I will read it again:
The Board must also be able to require the young doctor during the early years of

his career, to give his whole time to the public service where the needs of the service require this.
Those are the words [Interruption.] I have been ladylike too long. Be quiet and try to behave like a gentleman.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady must remember that she is addressing me.

Dr. Summerskill: I think that you, Sir, will agree that I have been patient. I have never sat down and stood up so much during the seven years I have been in this House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I will protect the hon. Lady.

Captain Strickland: On a point of Order. The hon. Member read a further document than that which she has just now quoted. The question of the Minister was whether that last statement was from the White Paper. I understand that the hon. Lady said "Yes"; and then referred again to the former statement.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

Dr. Summerskill: I have just said that this document is so comprehensive—[Interruption.] It is a document that was circulated widely. It is divided into three columns giving the White Paper proposals, the B.M.A. proposals and the Minister's proposals for an alternative structure. It is possible for me to look at one document in which all three are contained. Having read the proposals in the White Paper, I said that the proposals of the Minister were that the proposed requirement that all doctors proposing to enter practice in new areas must obtain the Board's consent, would be dropped. The Minister has already told the House this afternoon that he is to direct nurses, after their first year, to those areas in which nurses are needed. Why is he willing to persuade nurses to go where they are needed, while he refuses to make young doctors go where they axe needed?

Mr. Willink: rose—

Dr. Summerskill: No, I am not giving way.

Sir H. Holdsworth: On a point of Order. Is not the right hon. Minister entitled to intervene to deny something?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it will be better if the hon. Lady were permitted to continue her speech.

Dr. Summerskill: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I appreciate your protection. In many parts of this country, as hon. Members opposite representing industrial constituencies know very well, there is a dearth of doctors, whereas in other parts of the country there are doctors who are fairly idle. It is suggested, therefore, that doctors should be directed, for the first few years after qualification, to the industrial areas where they are needed. This proposal has been dropped. This means, in effect, that the privileged will always be assured of medical treatment, but that the worker may have to sit for an hour or two in a surgery before he receives attention. If one goes to the East End of London one will see outside the doctors' surgeries queues of men and women who have worked all day, waiting for hours for attention. Surely the time has come to redistribute our medical population on better lines than that?
For years we have felt that the time had come to introduce a salaried service. Doctors who work in health centres should be paid on a salary basis. In the White Paper this proposal was fully set out. The Minister is willing that it should be dropped. We have heard to-day that one-third of the doctors of the country are in the Services. What is to happen to those young doctors when they return? Here is an excellent opportunity for them to practise their science in the health centres. Young, keen men, already accustomed to working together in the Services, could come to the health centres, and give of their best, and they would be happy to come there. Most of them are without practices; most of them are without large capital. It has been suggested that young doctors should not be handicapped if they have not the capital to buy practices. This was a chance for young doctors. It is to be dropped; and it is to be dropped in the name of freedom. I suggest that if a doctor works on a salary, he will be, for the first time in his life, experiencing real freedom: the freedom to tell the patient what he or she should be told, the freedom to refuse to prescribe a bottle of medicine when it is not needed, the freedom to tell the truth, the freedom to be able to dismiss the wealthy neurotic, and the freedom to

welcome the worker who has real illness and needs time and attention. He has lost that freedom. The only freedom the Minister is giving him is the freedom to go to the moneylender when he comes back from the Services.
Every principle for which the Conservative Party stand at this Election has been violated in this document. They talk in their manifesto about the Socialists introducing a bureaucratic State. If these proposals of the Minister are accepted, every single proposal for an improvement in the health service will have to be discussed by nine committees, and, according to these proposals, the Central Council will be composed of 37 members, of whom only five will represent local authorities. The effect of this will be to conserve out-of-date methods of treating the sick and the poor, to uphold the charitable system, to thwart the brilliant young doctor without capital, and to preserve the privileges of those who make fortunes out of the ill-health of the workers.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Storey: I should not have intervened in this Debate if it had not been for the most unfair attack which has been made by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill). They have suggested that the Minister has dropped proposals which have been put forward by the Coalition Government and approved toy this House. He has done nothing of the kind. What the Government put forward were certain proposals for a health service, as a basis for discussion, both inside and out-side the House. What the House agreed to was that these proposals should be the basis of discussion. What has happened is that these discussions have taken place with the bodies most concerned, the B.M.A., the B.H.A., and the local authorities; and the alternative proposals which are now under discussion, which arc referred to in the document that the hon. Lady has quoted, are simply alternatives to the proposals which were put forward by the Government. They are proposals which are perfectly in order, and which the Minister said that he would put before his colleagues only if they were agreed by the bodies concerned. There will be no definite proposals put before the House until the Government have agreed to these proposals, and I think the


House should wait until we have definite proposals in the shape of legislation. The hon. Lady has criticised these proposals. I would say only that the alternatives that the Minister is to put before his colleagues are alternatives which have been discussed by the B.M.A., representing the medical profession, and the B.H.A., representing the hospitals, and that they are proposals on which those bodies have agreed. I think the House should wait until the Government have decided on these proposals before any definite opinion is formed about them.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the hon. Member aware that young medical men complain that they have had no opportunity to attend the B.M.A. Conference, and that it is only the older men, in established practice, who attend, 'because they have the liberty to do so, while the young men are back at home looking after their patients?

Mr. Storey: On the contrary, the B.M.A. have circulated their proposals to the profession, and the negotiations have been held up for a long period, because of the difficulty of getting the members to discuss them. Even if the hon. Member is right in saying that the young men are unable to attend, surely that is a reason why we should wait for the Government's proposals before we express any definite opinion on them.

6.37 p.m.

Dr. Morgan: I rise in this turmoil with some diffidence. I happen to be, as usual, in the position of having heard both sides before, not only in this House but outside. I have heard the workers' point of view; and I have heard the medical point of view, because I happen to be a member of the council of the British Medical Association. I hope hon. Members on this side will forgive me for saying that I am astonished at the anti-medical feeling which exists in some quarters, because the recognised organisation of part of the health workers, the doctors, has desired to enter into negotiation with the Government and with other bodies to discuss something which will affect the whole of the conditions of their work in future. This is a very radical change from the point of view of the profession, and I submit, purely from a trade union point of view, that it really is advisable for our side to grant, perhaps conde-

scendingly, to the B.M.A., as representing the doctors, the right, whatever one may think about them and their policy, to enter into negotiations, as any other trade union has the right to do.
When trade unions, even big ones like the transport workers, the miners and the engineers, enter into negotiations, reports are not sent out every day as to the state of the negotiations. When the B.M.A. are negotiating with the Minister, they are entitled to respect the confidence of the Minister, as the Minister is expected to respect their confidence, and, in addition, they are expected to tell their constituent members what is going on. The position has been very difficult. I cannot understand all this fuss. I am employed by a very powerful trade union body and I see this sort of condition, about negotiations and confidence, taking place every day. For the life of me I cannot see why doctors should not be allowed to enter into negotiations with the Minister. We have heard that the Minister has entered into consultations with the local authorities and other bodies. It is no secret—you will see it entered on their minutes—that the B.M.A. has entered into discussions with the Trades Union Congress. Is there anything wrong about that? As the result of the Llanelly medical dispute, which was settled 'by the benevolence of the Trades Union Congress, there was formed a joint committee between the B.M.A. and the T.U.C. These bodies rightly discuss important problems interesting to both. Although I personally may disagree with some of the decisions made by the medical profession as a result of their discussions, I cannot see why the body which is truly representative of the profession should not have a right either to negotiate with the Minister or to express its views when something vital to the working of a scheme in which the profession is deeply involved is taking place.
Many of the proposals are alleged to have been violations of the original principles. I have read the report of the discussions, and I wish some Member would tell me where these principles are violated.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the principle underlying the White Paper was that the doctor should go where his services are most required, and that the principle of the B.M.A. is that a doctor shall go where he can make the most money?

Dr. Morgan: That sounds very nice, but it is neither true nor intelligent. There is no question that the doctor, like every other worker, expects to be paid, and he wants good conditions of work. He has an organisation which negotiates good conditions of work. I objected very much to certain terms of the White Paper, which I thought involved the directing of young doctors. I asked the Minister about it, and he gave me a personal assurance that it was not the intention of the Government to direct doctors intoparticular areas.

Mr. McNeil: Surely what the Minister said was that direction would be reserved for young doctors who opted for full-time State service.

Dr. Morgan: What I understood the Minister to say was that a young doctor, before he entered an area which was already in the discretion of the Central Medical Board or which was already fully doctored, would be required to have experience in a health centre. Every young doctor should have some experience in an institution before he goes into general practice. All this seems to me beside the point. What principles were broken in the discussions? The uniformity is still there, the availability is still there, the necessity for the fully-trained competence of the doctor is still there, adequate planning is still there, prevention is still there—although this Measure is very bad from the point of view of prevention. Where the Minister has allowed the B.M.A. to ask him to go in a wrong direction is in relation to the administrative structure. Unfortunately, in regard to the administrative structure, he has allowed the profession to put proposals before him which would give the medical profession a majority perhaps in most of the bodies.
I have gone through this scheme with a fine comb. Although I am very keen on seeing that my profession gets a square deal, I am also after a good medical service for the poor. I want to see the local authorities brought in and the rights of the medical profession saved. I cannot see why you cannot have decent Whitley Councils for the profession, at every level of the scheme, and, at the same time, allow people like the planning councils which will, presumably, take the place of the health service councils, to have a majority of the people who, after

all, will pay for the scheme and who are prepared to listen to the wisdom of the professional side. That is my only objection, but I think it is a perfectly valid objection. I think that consultants in voluntary hospitals have seen to it that they get a big share in any proposed administrative system. They are to be represented as consultants, and as members of hospitals, and then there are the local authorities' representatives, some of whom must be medical men. With all respect to both sides, I think that, if negotiations are allowed to continue, things will right themselves in the ordinary way.
I want to make a point about health centres. I cannot see how the new proposals with regard to health centres should invalidate the establishment of health centres anywhere. I have read through this most carefully, and cannot see how the wording in any way suggests that. All it says is that health centres, when set up, are to be under central control and supervision so as to enable the experience of one centre to be gathered together for the benefit of the rest.
But I did not rise with the intention of touching on any controversial point. This question has reached a stage at which I do not think my hon. Friends on this side of the House should call me "Tory" because I happen to see good fruit in certain proposals. I do not see why, because I am a Socialist, I should necessarily be unfair or vilify anyone who is striving in my view to come to a correct conclusion. I may be wrong in this, but I am a doctor, accustomed to trying to diagnose cases, taking the good and the bad points and coming to the correct diagnosis. In this matter, because the public benefit is at stake, and the interests of the common patient are at stake, I do not think this manoeuvring for position between one section of medical opinion, represented by the British Medical Association, and other sections, represented by different associations, should be allowed to spoil the whole good picture, which will, ultimately, have to come in administering this scheme, which seems to me to be based on the right lines.
I want to ask the Minister some questions about nurses. I have had great correspondence on this matter and I speak with knowledge because I happen to be the representative of a very important union—the Hospital and Welfare Services


Union, which is a body trying to organise the different numbers of professions and crafts engaged in all the health institutions of the country. I have been struck, in all the discussions which have taken place, in "The Times" and everywhere else, by the insistence on the lack of nurses and the fact that they will not volunteer for duty. Of course, they will not; is it not plain why they will not? It is the fact, which nobody ever mentions in this House or outside it, that the nurses and institutional workers are not allowed by their employers to organise in trade unions. When a doctor goes to a hospital, appointed by the governing body, whether it is a reactionary local authority or a voluntary hospital, nobody dares to tell that doctor "You cannot join the B.M.A. or the General Practitioners' Union." But, if nurses wish to join any union of their own they are told they are not allowed to do that voluntarily without permission from the matron.
I could give the Minister cases in support of this statement. I have a good case of a matron's tyranny against a nurse, in which a petty offence is being used to damn a girl's career for the rest of her life. The Minister knows all about that case, but he has not got the courage to stop the grant of public money to that institution until that case is put right. I know of a hospital where the nurses had a union branch 300 strong. They voluntarily began this trade union branch. Within a month it was down to 20 because the matron said their careers were at stake if they remained in the union. What opportunity is given the domestic staff of welfare, promotion and striving for something better? When they go into one of these health institutions, it is a blind alley in which their lives are going to be spent for some time. That is no way to run a public service. If nurses are allowed opportunities, it will be found that the administration will become better.
The case of the nurse I mentioned just now happened in a London hospital. The nurse served up to within three months of the required period in a London hospital. Owing to the distribution of hospitals during the war, she had not been seen by the matron during that time. The matron saw this young nurse at a lecture, and afterwards sent for her and said, "I do not like the way you dress your hair; it is too floppy, and it is not nice." The

nurse said, "I cannot help myself; it cannot be altered. Everybody has tried, but that is the way my hair lies." The matron said, "Well, you are not fit to be a nurse and will not be allowed to be a nurse while you wear your hair in that fashion." They tried everything they could with that girl's hair—pomades and everything. [Interruption.] There is no Gestapo here, but this is a mild form of the Gestapo which is prophesied for England. When the nurse's certificate was nearly due, the matron sent for her and dismissed her. The girl's fiancé, who was risking his life bombing Germans, asked permission to marry her, and the matron said, "In this institution we give no marriage leave." They even wanted to insist on a search of her baggage, because it was alleged that she was supposed to be taking away a uniform for which the hospital had found the material and she had paid for the making-up. Eventually, the airman took his bride away and married her, and she has never been back to the hospital. [An Hon. Member: "Is the matron still there?"] Yes, the matron is still there.
I wrote to the Minister giving him full details and asking him whether, in an emergency hospital service, when public money was being provided for such institutions, he could not exercise his right as Minister of Health to see that public money was only given to institutions over which he had some control. He and his Parliamentary Secretary wrote back and said, "We are very sorry, but we cannot interfere with the administration and the rules in this hospital." [Interruption.] So public money is to be given to such voluntary hospitals as this—which is a teaching school—and when the matron acts in the manner I have described with one of the nurses who has passed all her examinations, the Minister tells me that he is helpless and can do nothing. That negative attitude adopted by Government Departments encourages the Gestapo in certain voluntary hospitals, and it is the reason why the nurses in these institutions do not want to volunteer and the reason why the nursing profession is in such a bad state as regards recruitment.
I could say a lot about rehabilitation, a subject on which the Minister has not touched, and about difficulties in local authority hospitals in the counties of Devon, Somerset and Hampshire and all through South-West England, where only


the chronic sick are being treated because the Minister has not seen fit to give them sufficient grants to build up their services. I could say a lot in an attack on the Minister—[An Hon. Member: "Say it"]—but I only want to tell him that, whether he is Minister of Health in future or not, his career will be watched.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Willink: I hesitate very much to intervene, and it is only because of the challenge put to me by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and repeated by the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) that I thought it was right—and I hope the House will give me permission—to make a very short statement on the position with regard to the White Paper, especially as it was I myself who, together with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for WestStirling (Mr. Johnston), conducted the great bulk of these discussions. Strong words have been used and it has been suggested that something has been done in conflict with the express will of the House. I want once again to make it clear that the House, I am sure, contemplated—because the White Paper said that it would occur—that the Debates on the White Paper would be followed by the widest discussion with all concerned, the leading groups among whom—there are many others—are the local authorities, the voluntary hospitals and the medical profession. It was then contemplated that the House would next hear of the Government's proposals in a Bill, which, it was hoped, would be largely agreed. It was plainly contemplated, whether from the point of view of the local authorities, the hospitals, the medical profession or anybody else, that there might be modifications within the general objects of a comprehensive health service.
Only last week, on a Supply Day, hon. Members on the other side—different hon. Members—were acutely anxious that there should be no departure by myself from the Rules of Order applying to a Supply Day, and I therefore endeavoured, before today, to instruct myself quite accurately as to what I could go into, bearing in mind that the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.

Mr. McNeil: On a point of Order. Are we now having instructions from the

Government to the Chair of this House as to how the Debate shall be run?

Mr. Willink: I was only explaining to the House the basis on which I was going to make this statement.

Mr. Logan: Are we to understand that the Minister has to go to Erskine May to find out what we can debate in this House when we ask for a specific reply from the Minister?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: On Report of Supply anything involving legislation is out of Order and my difficulty is that I understand that this matter involves legislation. It is very difficult to raise the question without being out of Order.

Mr. Logan: Was the Minister in Order in what he was saying?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not out of Order.

Mr. Willink: I was merely endeavouring to explain to the House the rules within which I was myself trying to keep, and I thought that that would make the position clear.

Mr. Logan: And the Minister has to go to Erskine May. Is that it?

Mr. Willink: The details of proposals which may appear in a Bill which I hope will be presented by a Government constituted like the present one, would be matters into which I could not possibly go and, that being so, whether or not any hon. Member objected, I gather that I should be called to Order. But the Bill is not, as we had hoped, being introduced in the course of this Parliament. It is, I assume, to the taste, since it is by the choice, of hon. Members opposite that this Bill will be introduced in a new Parliament. All I can say is that, as far as I am aware—and I am really confident that this is so—no Government constituted as the present Government will in any way limit the availability of the Service nor its comprehensive character, nor will they fail in achieving any of the objectives of the White Paper. The hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham asked how the Government squared the Prime Minister's declaration of policy with the report of the British Medical Association on discussions with the Minister of


Health? It really is not for the Government nor for the Prime Minister to square his declaration of policy with, some document issued by the British Medical Association. If the House wants to find a declaration of Government policy and objectives in the matter of health it will find it in the Prime Minister's declaration issued yesterday. If there is any syllable of conflict between the British Medical Association's report and that declaration of policy, the House must take it that it is the declaration of policy which it has to consider. When the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) asks whether agreements were made with any of these discussing bodies, I will tell him straight, as I have told people on many occasions, that no agreements of any kind were made. This was not an occasion for agreement, but a matter to be submitted to the House.
The only other question on which I really ought to say a word, is the question which the hon. Lady asked when I referred to the direction of nurses—Would there not also be direction of doctors? I ought to call the attention of the House to the fact that what I was describing was something that was going on with regard to the nursing profession in time of war, whereas she was referring to something which would have to be enshrined in legislation dealing with the future.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not replied to any of the questions which I put to him. We do not object to discussions; I do not at all. I said that it appeared from the document issued by the B.M.A. to their numbers that the Minister had put forward proposals to them which were a fundamental departure from the White Paper which we were asked to approve. We were asked to approve certain proposals, and after approving them, the Minister goes to the B.M.A. and puts different proposals before them.

Mr. Willink: What people consider to be "fundamental" is a matter for their own judgment and a matter of opinion. I was making a broad and general statement to the effect that no measure introduced in this field by this Government would abandon any of the objects of, or depart in any way from the complete availability of the comprehensive service

outlined in the White Paper. There are sure to be some changes in the scheme outlined in the White Paper. Fifteen months' discussion do not result in no suggestions for changes, and some of them might commend themselves to the Government when it came to frame the Bill. I do not believe there is any change which could be described as fundamental, for the reason that all the changes in my mind relate to methods and not to principles, objectives, or scope.

7.6 p.m.

Dr. Haden Guest: I was very glad to hear the Minister's statement, because what he has said does, to a certain extent, clarify the situation, but there is not the slightest doubt whatever—as is shown very clearly in this House—that there is a great deal of disturbance of the mental atmosphere in the medical profession. I suggest, as I took occasion to suggest on an earlier occasion, that it would be a very good thing if there could be a statement put before the country as to the present state of negotiations with the British Medical Association. Although I, as a member, know what the document which has been published suggests and a good deal about the negotiations, I do not myself feel justified in discussing this in the House of Commons, for one excellent reason, if for no other. They are not known to the bulk of the Members of the House and, therefore, it is extremely difficult to follow what the discussion is about.
Far from objecting to discussions with representatives of the medical profession, I want to make sure that the Minister has taken all steps to secure that those discussions are sufficiently extensive. I want particularly to ask him whether he is satisfied that the doctors in the Services have been sufficiently consulted with regard to the proposals which the Negotiating Committee and he and his advisers have been meeting to discuss. Perhaps I may give an example to illustrate my point. This arises not only from the incident that I am going to relate, but from my general experience. At the beginning of May I happened to pay a visit to Germany and went to a certain Army Corps, where I dined in the mess. It was not entirely a medical mess, but there were something like 12 senior medical officers there. Only two of those medical officers—and I stress the date; it was at the beginning of May—


knew what were the proposals of the Medical Association. They had not had the documents. If the senior men had not had them, then a good many of the junior men occupied with regimental duties, M.O.s with battalions and various other units, would not have had the opportunity of really studying the proposals. There are difficulties in the Navy and the Air Force, but tremendous difficulties in the Army. There was, for instance, on 3rd and 4th May last, a special representative meeting of the B.M.A. That matter has been made public. Can the Minister say whether there were present at that meeting any representatives, as such, of the Army Medical Service, the Naval Medical Service and the Air Medical Service? One is entitled to ask that question. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan), who is a member of the Council of the B.M.A., may know whether it is a fact or not.
I do not ask this merely because I consider that the Services ought to have a considerable amount of consideration in this matter, but because of the arithmetical factor. The Minister, in answer to a Question I put to him the other day, gave the figures of the numbers of doctors serving in the Services. He said that there were 2,405 in the Navy, 2,564 in the Air Force, and 12,200 in the Army, making the very large total of something over 17,000. The proportion of doctors in the Services to those on the register as medical practitioners is not less than 27·5 per cent., and, as the Minister himself said in answer to a supplementary question of mine, the proportion of doctors in the Services to the active members of the medical profession was no less than 31·3 per cent. I emphasise that if one-third of the medical profession have not been adequately consulted about these proposals, he is not standing on a very solid foundation.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Are the doctors in the Services also members of the B.M.A.?

Dr. Guest: I am not able to tell the hon. Member how many are members of the B.M.A., but no doubt a number of them are. I am not going to commit myself to any figures, save to say that a considerable number of those doctors are members of the British Medical Association. Some of those doctors are in India,

Burma, in the Middle East, North Africa, Italy, some were prisoners of war, and some were with the B.L.A. when it was in the midst of very active operations. The hon. Gentleman has had military service and will remember that, during very active military operations, it is a little difficult to keep track of correspondence which sends you large documents of the description of that "British Medical Journal" which I hold in my hand. You cannot do it. You cannot expect men engaged in active military operations to keep in touch with all the detailed discussions that we are having to-day. They have not the time. They are doing things which to them are more important, and which perhaps in the long run will be more important than some of the things that have been said to-day.
I suggest to the Minister that, if the medical men in the Services have not been adequately consulted, special steps ought to be taken to consult them. I know that a considerable number of doctors in the Services replied to the questionnaire sent out by the British Medical Association, and that it is the opinion in the Services that a very large number of the doctors serving—I am speaking of the Army at the moment—are strongly in favour of the White Paper as it was in the original form, without any particular modification, except some modification in the direction of more fully representing the State medical service proposals. There is another reason why the doctors in the Services, who represent perhaps the younger and more vigorous stratum of the medical profession in this country, deserve special attention, because they have had invaluable experience, particularly in the Army, and there has been the greatest possible, progress made in medicine and in surgery in the Army, much more than in civil life. These men are to a large extent the cream of the medical profession and ought to have adequate recognition in the discussions which are taking place.
I want to ask another question. I was very glad to hear from the Minister recognition of the extremely valuable part that has been played by the Emergency Medical Service in this country during the war. There are very large numbers of junior men in the medical service who also have been very fully employed, and I am not at all sure that those men have been adequately consulted either.
I wonder whether the Minister has any interim proposals to put forward in case there should be a gap between the demobilisation of doctors—which, like the demobilisation of other people in the Services, begins on 18th June—and the bringing into operation of some comprehensive medical service for the civilian population? The Minister mentioned the very excellent relations which exist in the E.M.S. between voluntary and publicly-owned hospitals. I was very glad he did so because it has not been emphasised before from the Ministerial side, so far as I remember. I had a very intimate connection with those hospitals at the beginning of the war when I was serving on the medical staff of the Eastern Command and I know that those relations were exactly like the relations of brothers.

Dr. Morgan: indicated dissent.

Dr. Guest: I know them probably more intimately than my hon. Friend.

Dr. Morgan: I think the hon. Member does not.

Dr. Guest: I could never quite understand some hon. Members on the other side who seemed to think there was bound to be a feud between the voluntary hospitals and the publicly-owned ones. I have no reason whatever to think that they cannot get on very amiably together. Has the Minister any interim proposals in case there is a gap? There is the possibility, by using the E.M.S., by prolonging its life—it is a temporary service for war purposes—to cover the first part of the peace-time period. There is a posibility of providing through the E.M.S. a full hospital service for all who require it, a full consultants' service, a full pathological service, and other services like X-ray and so forth. There is the possibility, by using the E.M.S., to get a full extension of T.B. services. I refuse to believe that the nursing and domestic service problems are insuperable. You will go a very long way towards solving these if you pay better remuneration and if you decrease the hours so that nurses do not have to work so long.

Dr. Morgan: They should join a trade union.

Dr. Guest: In the County Council hospitals of London, of course, they join a trade union. I had a deputation from a

trade union of nurses the other day and I sent the right hon. and learned Gentleman a communication about them. They were complaining not so much of the long hours of work, although the hours were terrific, and not so much of tiredness and fatigue; they were complaining of the fact that the hours were so long, and the domestic work they had to do was so great, that they could not give the skilled attention to their patients that they knew the patients ought to have. The Minister wrote a sympathetic reply and referred to the things he has mentioned to-day—the shortage of staff for nursing and for the domestic service side of hospitals—a fundamentally important thing. I believe it is necessary at the present time to reconsider the financial aspect of this matter. We cannot allow the question of the treatment of tuberculosis and other important matters to be held up because we are not ready to pay nurses and the domestic staff of hospitals a wage which is adequate in the present economic circumstances. What is also needed is not only an extension of the tuberculosis service—I only mention this in passing because it has been brought to my attention—but the extension of the provision of maternity beds, especially in the present condition of housing when it is practically impossible for many women to have healthy confinements in their own home.
The E.M.S. does not provide for a service of doctors who would visit the homes and the service of doctors at their surgeries or at a health centre, but it would be quite easy for the E.M.S. service in any particular region to appoint temporarily on a salaried basis the number of doctors required to carry out domiciliary treatment in any area which was not doctored. I put this point to the Minister, and we are entitled to have a reply, I think, because the Minister knows as well as I do what is the alternative, but I do not think the House knows what is the alternative. I have in my hand a copy of the "British Medical Journal" for Saturday, 9th June, the supplement of which discusses the question of doctors coming back to this country before there is a medical service organised and having to buy themselves into practices. It says this:
It may be asked: What will be the position of a doctor who has borrowed money to buy a practice under the proposed National Health Service? The Government has announced that it does not propose to make


any alteration in the present custom of baying and selling practices in the Health Services Bill.
I have not heard that pronouncement, though perhaps the Minister may have made it.
A full inquiry into the whole question will be instituted after the new service has come into operation and experience of its working has been gained. If, as a result of the inquiry, the sale of practices is abolished or restricted by law the doctors affected will receive all proper compensation. This is the Government's decision communicated formally to the Association.
I am not quoting from a confidential document, and I take it that the Minister agrees that that is the case. If that is the case, how extremely complicated you will make the initiation of your medical health service if you permit, as a preliminary deployment of medical forces, the encouragement of a large number of doctors buying practices by borrowing money from banks and associations lending money.

Dr. Morgan: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but is it not a fact that the Minister agreed to put a proposal like this to his fellow Ministers in the Cabinet:
The Government do not propose, therefore, to make any alteration in the present custom in the forthcoming Health Services Bill, but they propose that a full inquiry into the whole question shall be instituted by a Committee appointed for that purpose….
That is all that has been communicated so far as I know.

Dr. Guest: I was reading a statement in the current number of the "British Medical Journal," which I think quite accurately states what is the situation.

Dr. Morgan: It is in a letter.

Dr. Guest: It seems to me a most unfortunate situation because, if we put a large number of junior doctors coming back from the Forces in the position of having to buy practices or make some purely temporary arrangement, we are creating enormous difficulties not only for the medical profession but for the civilian population. It would be infinitely better to have some arrangement ready-made so that when the doctors are demobilised they can step straight into the service.
A national medical service on the lines of the White Paper is not possible now for reasons of time. The time no longer

exists. This Government is going out of existence in a few days' time and another Government will take some time to be formed, and even then it will take time before a Bill can be tabled and longer time still before it can be passed. So there has to be an interval of some months, maybe a considerable interval. I suggest to the Minister that as a matter of emergency he might consider using the organisation of the Emergency Medical Service to bridge this gap between the present condition and the future proposals for a National Health Service. Not only will the civilian population suffer if there is a gap, but there will be a terrible financial burden put on the shoulders of the young men in the medical profession.
There is another aspect. If doctors are to have to buy their practices in this way in the future and the buying and selling of practices is going on, what is to become of the recommendation of the Good enough Report, that a larger pro portion of doctors should be recruited from the working classes? It must be most offensive to Conservative Members when I talk about members of the working classes becoming doctors, because many of them obviously dislike the members of the working classes very much. One of the recommendations of the Good-enough Report was that the distribution of doctors over the social classes of the community should be equalised. Do hon. Members realise that at present only six per cent. of the doctors come from, the working classes? And is it proposed that the Conservative Party want to keep the medical profession as an exclusive preserve for the moneyed classes? I personally object very strongly to that view, because it will make the medical profession a more monied affair than it is at the present time.
These ideas of restriction and of making it inevitable that large numbers of young doctors will have to buy practices and load themselves with a tremendous weight of debt extending over a long period of years, with the possibility of getting out of it if a National Health Service is introduced, do not smell good to me at all. I think there are some interests in the Government standing against the opening of the real way to the health of the people. I believe myself that medicine, given the freedom mentioned by our distinguished new recruit to this House, the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir


J. Boyd Orr), who spoke so eloquently this afternoon, can achieve tremendous emancipation for the forces of human life. I believe that it has already done so in regard to infant welfare and in regard to school children, but what has been done for these two classes of the population can also be done for the higher ages and for adults, and it is most important, in a population which is continually increasing in its average age, that the health of those of the higher ages should be maintained at a higher level.
At the present time, however, when we ought to be organising for a National Health Service of the most comprehensive kind, free from all financial trammels, we have this financial niggling standing in the way. What a gift to the Service man who is coming back from great service in the R.A.M.C, with perhaps many decorations for gallantry—the D.S.O., the M.C., the V.C., whatever you like—and when he comes back you say, "Your grateful country will allow you to borrow £5,000 or whatever it may be, to go on paying that over a period of ten years, allowing yourself a small proportion of your earnings every year to live on, and then you will find yourself at the end of that time with a fine property and be a fit member of some Conservative organisation."That is a most undesirable thing to offer to young medical men coming back from the Services. I think we ought to ask the Minister of Health with regard to these proposals to think again, and, when he has thought again, to go on thinking again until he brings something better forward for the country. As an interim proposal he might very well take up the question of using the E.M.S. to bridge the gap between the present and what may be the future, if the proper kind of Government is elected at the next Election, of a real National Health Service.

7.29 p.m.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I rise because I have risen previously to so many points of Order that I would like to make my own position perfectly clear. I thought the discussion would be confined absolutely to the Supply Vote and I did not think we should be allowed to discuss the White Paper and the future health proposals. I think that this discussion has gone a little outside the Ruling

given in the early part of the Debate. For that reason I, at any rate, had to rise to points of Order this afternoon. I am not quite clear about the attitude of hon. Members opposite to the White Paper. I think they are tending to establish something which might be very inconvenient to them in the future, a sort of new constitutional idea about White Papers. They are giving these White Papers a kind of statutory significance, which I think is quite wrong and which will come back on their heads should they ever occupy the Government Benches, which is unlikely. When the White Paper on Health Services was issued some time ago, it was discussed for two days during which varying opinions were put forward. Because it had no statutory significance, and because they knew it would not become the law of the land, Members of the House declined to acquiesce in its proposals. It was quite clear that there were many things in that. Paper which were wrong. For instance, it appeared to many of us that its proposals would tend to enslave the medical profession.

Mr. Silverman: rose—

Dr. Thomas: No, I do not intend to give way.

Mr. Silverman: A Motion was passed, following the Debate on that White Paper.

Mr. G. Griffiths: The hon. Member does not now remember that.

Mr. Silverman: I only want to point out to the hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Thomas) that the White Paper proposals were approved without a Division and that they became the declared policy of the House. It was not as if the White Paper had been simply put out in the Vote Office for discussion outside the House.

Dr. Thomas: The hon. Member was not in his place until a few moments ago, and although I agree that approval by this House of a White Paper is an indication to the Government to go forward, this White Paper has no statutory significance. Do not let us think that any of these White Papers have any statutory significance—

Mr. G. Griffiths: We know they have not.

Dr. Thomas: These White Papers are matters for discussion alone. The large


mass of the people of the country considered that the proposals underlying the White Paper on Health Services tended to enslave the medical profession, that if they were followed out they would destroy the voluntary institutions throughout the land, and to which members of the medical profession have given such great and devoted service. As time has gone on it has become clearer to hospitals, the medical profession, to the public and probably to the Minister and the Government that the principles of the White Paper could not be enforced, because the public would not swallow it. The Minister since then has reopened negotiations with the British Medical Association, the hospital authorities and various other bodies, and I believe an interim document was published by the B.M.A. which was, I believe, nothing more than a basis for further negotiations. It is a summary of what the B.M.A. think of things up to date. I am not satisfied with that document at all; I do not think it is strong enough, but that is a matter of opinion. I cannot see that the Minister is bound by that document. He has denied that he has made any promises in regard to it. Furthermore, the B.M.A. cannot bind the utterances and acts of the Government.

Mr. James Griffith: I was not attacking the B.M.A., but the Government. The B.M.A. say that the Government made proposals to them which were a change from the old ones. I want to know what the B.M.A. say to the Government.

Dr. Morgan: The document said that they were proposals which the Minister would be willing to put to his colleagues as soon as he knew that they commended themselves to the medical profession. This was a set of views as the result of a discussion between the B.M.A. and the Government, and were put forward by the B.M.A.

Dr. Thomas: I think it is perfectly reasonable that the Minister should do that. I do not wish to keep the House any longer. I merely wish to make my own position clear and to deplore the new constitutional idea which hon. Members opposite are putting on the production of White Papers. That, I think, is highly dangerous, and will be especially so in the future.

Mr. McIntyre: The Minister of Health indicated earlier to-day that in a general way there had been-some improvement in the health of the people, and that that might be due to the Government's food policy. In other words, the health of some individuals is better because they have been getting the present British Government's food ration. There is some truth in that, as my lion. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir John Boyd Orr) told us this afternoon. An investigation in Glasgow showed that some increase in the height and weight of children had taken place during the war, but that is nothing for which the Government ought to pat themselves on the back; it is one of the most disturbing facts I have ever come across. It means that before the war, people were not able to buy even up to the amount of rations that they are getting now. The question is whether, as the war recedes into the background, the dole queues possibly come back—if the present Government is still in charge of affairs—people whose wages will be lower than their war-time wages will find themselves on a lower standard of living than even the war-time standard. I would hope that the policy in Scotland, of allowing the best of food, the best of the Aberdeen Angus beef, to be exported to the luxury markets of the London West End, where the need is not nearly so great, will cease, and that the food of Scotland will be given to those who require it most in Scotland, to those who have been, up to now, undernourished.

Captain Duncan: Does not the hon. Member know that in London the best meat goes to the poor people?

Mr. J. Griffiths: Neither of the hon. Members knows London.

Mr. McIntyre: If what the hon. and gallant Member says is true then London is very different from every other town and city and village in the whole world. I rather think, however, that he is looking through the wrong end of a telescope. If we are to see that the health of the Scottish people is improved then we must look to our land policy, and use all our resources for our own folk.
The Minister did not discuss the serious question of mental health, which has not improved during 'the war. In fact, if it


was better no doubt the Government would be looking more anxiously to the General Election. I hope the Minister is aware of the general increase in neurosis which, even quite apart from that recognised by official statistics, is much more prevalent than it has ever been in the whole history of Scotland—

Dr. Morgan: And in England.

Mr. McIntyre: The Minister painted a glowing picure in other respects; but two of the chief indices of general health are infant mortality and the tuberculosis rate. Both are disturbingly high, the former about 68 per 1,000, which is nearly double the figure for England. We have not yet heard what the Under-Secretary has to say on these matters. No Government statement on Scotland has yet been made in this Debate which is very awkward, so we just have to reply to a review which may come later. I think the Government are showing a scandalous disregard for Scotland in this matter, no doubt because they have appointed someone as Secretary of State who is not able to sit in this House.
On the question of tuberculosis we find that the Government's scheme for mass radiography was publicised to a great extent. You could not walk along the street without realising that something was doing about tuberculosis. But I suggest in all seriousness, and as a medical man, that this scheme was largely a farce. What was the use of diagnosing people as having tuberculosis if you had not the beds to put them in? You have a waiting list in Glasgow, at present, of about 1,100 people. What is the use of increasing that number if you have not the beds to put them in? We are told that it is due to a shortage of nursing staff. That is due to the poor conditions in the hospitals, but it is also due directly to the policy of the Ministry of Labour for the last four years. I have had to stand the greatest abuse in a. Glasgow labour exchange for suggesting that a competent girl should become a nurse. She did, but not on account of the helpfulness of the labour exchange and at a time when advertisements on the hoardings were crying out for nurses. There was no seriousness behind the Government's pretensions when they said that they wanted nurses. They were conscripting girls away from Scotland, instead of allowing them to

nurse in Scotland. They did not improve conditions in hospitals to an extent sufficient to attract nurses.
With regard to doctors throughout the public health services, I want to know how long the Government intend to keep the posts "frozen" and doctors from changing their positions. I had a letter to-day from a doctor in this service, in Scotland, asking how long he would remain "frozen" in his job by the Government. He is a man who has been in one position for a long time, and who has done well. If he is not allowed to move soon he will go abroad, with the permission of the Government, to take a job there. A competent man with knowledge and skill in public health work will then be lost to the country and the Government are crying out for doctors, but because of this "freezing" policy they will lose many of them.
We know that there are two sides to the whole question of health. There is prevention, which is a social and political and economic question; then there is the question of treatment. Unfortunately, doctors are being used not only for treatment but to certify whether a man is or is not honest in saying that he has a cold or something of that kind, and whether he needs two days off. I hope that kind of thing will soon be stopped; I hope we shall not see a medical Gestapo imposed on people to decide whether or not they are honest. I have had personal experience; I have been asked to give a certificate in cases where it has not been a question of a medical opinion, but a moral opinion. No one has a right to judge people on those matters and certainly it is not a question for the medical profession.
In conclusion, if we want to improve the health of the people of Scotland, the only way to do it is to make the fullest possible use of our resources in Scotland. It can be done. We can build the houses and we can grow the food. I sincerely hope it will be done somehow or other in the course of the next 10 years. Tuberculosis can be nearly wiped out if we have the will to do it. Unfortunately, I fail to see any signs of that in the Government at the moment, but I hope things will improve.

7.46 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State far Scotland (Commander Galbraith): It has always seemed to me that the main aim


of every politician and also of Parliament should be to use every possible endeavour to increase the happiness of the people. The measure of happiness that can be enjoyed by any individual depends probably more on health than on any other single agency, and so it seems to me quite natural that, for that reason, we have come to regard the health of the nation as one of our most important preoccupations and duties. It is, therefore, very fitting that in this last week of the life of one of the longest Parliaments in our history we should have devoted practically one full day to a Debate on the nation's health. The Debate has ranged over a very wide field indeed. There is practically no aspect of the problem which has not been touched upon in one way or another, and I think every hon. Member will agree with me that the Debate has not only been well worth while but highly valuable.
In a Debate on the Health Estimates Scottish Members have come to expect a general review of Scotland's health, and therefore it may be for the convenience of the House if, before I proceed to deal with some of the many important points that have been raised in the course of the Debate, I say a word or two about the health position of Scotland. In moving the Estimates last year, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston), the former Secretary of State for Scotland, was able to indicate that in the main Scotland's health had not deteriorated. I am glad to say the position has, on the whole, been well maintained during the past year. More generally, I can tell the House that, despite all the strains and difficulties of war-time, the trend of the health of our our people, as shown by the health indices, has with few exceptions been satisfactory, and in many respects better than in the immediate pre-war years.
The time at my disposal is limited, but I think the House would wish me to give one or two figures which bear out that contention. Stillbirths have been reduced by 9·5 per 1,000 births since 1939. The maternal death rate has fallen from 4·9 in 1938 to 3 per 1,000 live births in 1944. In 1938 maternal deaths totalled 432, in 1944 they were reduced to 293. But more impressive is it to realise that the 1944 rate is but half of what it was 10 years ago. Infant mortality, which has been the cause of much concern in Scot-

land, has fallen from 69·5 per 1,000 live births in 1938 to 65 in 1944, the lowest figure ever recorded in our history, but a figure that is still far too high. The problems associated with infant mortality in Scotland were stated with great clarity and frankness in the report of the Sub-Committee of the Scientific Advisory Committee published in 1943, and I would like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the work of that Sub-Committee and of its Chairman, now a Member of the House, the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Boyd Orr).

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the only tribute worth paying would be to remove the causes of the disease in Scotland?

Commander Galbraith: If the hon. Member will permit me to go on, I will say what we are doing in that respect. The report of that Sub-Committee has received the most careful consideration of the authorities, many of whom, I am happy to say, have plans in being for the expansion of their services against the time when additional premises and more staff can be made available. There is one age group to which I would like to draw the particular attention of the House. It is that of children between the ages of 1 and 5 years. The death rate in that group was only half in 1944 what it had been immediately before the war. It was six and a half times lower than it was at the beginning of the present century.
Our experience of diphtheria is very similar to that which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has given for England. Notifications of the disease have dropped from 10,210 in 1938 to 6,805 1944 Deaths from diphtheria among children have dropped from 430 in 1938 to 163 in 1944. The point which I wish to stress particularly, in support of what my right hon. Friend said this afternoon, is that out of these 163 deaths in 1944 only four occurred among those children who have been immunised. That low proportion surely gives the strongest possible support to the campaign for immunisation. In Scotland that campaign has now been going on for a sufficient length of time to enable the Department of Health in Scotland to assess the results, and it is amply satisfied that the compaign has enormously reduced both suffering and deaths among our child population; but as my right hon. Friend said, there


is still room for further efforts and greater improvement. I do most earnestly hope that the local authorities and the parents will co-operate in seeing that as many children as possible get the protection which immunisation affords.
Those are the bright spots. I fear there are one or two dark spots on our record, and to these I must refer. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health gave a very comprehensive survey of the state of the nation, in which he dealt particularly with tuberculosis. In Scotland tuberculosis is our greatest problem at this moment. While the notifications of non-pulmonary tuberculosis have remained fairly constant, notifications of pulmonary tuberculosis have increased from 4,793 in 1938 to 7,276 in 1944. Deaths rose from 3,431 in 1938 to 4,174 in 1941. Since then they have declined slightly to 3,935 in 1944. Whatever may be the cause for this increase in pulmonary tuberculosis, the problem is one which demands our utmost and active consideration. As in England, so in Scotland we have been able to make additional beds available for pulmonary patients, but even so over 1,700 cases are awaiting admission to our hospitals. As my right hon. Friend has said, the crux of the problem is lack of staff, especially nurses and domestic workers. The shortage of nurses is acute in many of our hospitals, but it is most serious in our sanatoria, and I hope, therefore, that the appeal of which my right hon. Friend has spoken to-day may come to the notice of thousands of our young women who have an aptitude for nursing and induce them to take up nursing as a career.
The shortage of medical manpower is another of our difficulties, and since the needs of the Forces in the Far East must be met—and they are relatively greater in a theatre where civilian medical resources are not available—we cannot, I fear, anticipate any rapid relief in the immediate future. In spite of that, our civilian health services are being maintained.

Mr. Mathers: Am I to understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has left the question of tuberculosis? He made rather an obscure reference to the rise in the incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis and he seemed to indicate that there was some doubt as to

what was the cause. I hope that is not the position.

Commander Galbraith: There are many causes and many reasons for the rise. I said that whatever was the reason, it was a matter which needed the most serious consideration.

Mr. Mathers: But the causes are known?

Commander Galbraith: I think that may generally be taken as correct.

Mr. McIntyre: Did the Minister make a slip? It is not active consideration but action that is needed now. Sufficient is known of the causes. Am I right?

Commander Galbraith: There has still got to be very much consideration as to how the matter is to be dealt with.

Mr. Maxton: I apologise for interrupting the hon. and gallant Gentleman; as he is fresh to the job, I do not want to make his task any more difficult in the brief period he is likely to have it. I think he is leaving now the question of the shortage of medical men. He mentioned the difficulty of releasing medical men from the Forces because they are needed in the Far East. Can he say whether any steps have been taken to release young men from the Army to take up studies as medical students? I am referring to men in the early groups who are to be released shortly from the Army. Have any steps been taken either in England or Scotland to secure that young medical students will get out in time to start their medical courses?

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that medical schools are absolutely full at the present time and are turning out as many doctors as possible; and the matter of the demobilisation of doctors from the Forces comes under the ordinary demobilisation scheme.

Mr. Maxton: Am I to understand that, as far as medicine is concerned, boys who have never been in the Army are to have a higher claim on the limited accommodation in medical schools than those who are in the Forces now?

Commander Galbraith: I am not prepared to answer that question at this moment. It is a detail of which I am not aware.

Mr. Maxton: It is more than a detail.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman can be certain that every facility will be given and is being given to the men in the Services to train themselves for their professions. I think he will find that that has been indicated by the Government already.
The school health services have shared in these staffing difficulties, nevertheless, the education authorities have continued their efforts to maintain a satisfactory standard. From the information available it can be seen that the physical education of schoolchildren, including their nutritional state, has not suffered as the result of war-time conditions, but the most impressive figures are these showing the increase in height and weight since 1930. In 1944 boys in Glasgow of five years of age showed an increase in height, as compared with 1930, of ·93 of an inch and in weight of 1·98 lb., while boys of 13 showed increases in the same period of 1·67 inches and 6·82 lb. These figures, covering a period of some 14 years, are but a pointer to what may yet be accomplished, and lead me to emphasise the importance of our school health services. Surely it is our duty to tackle in the years of childhood such conditions as can be remedied and to ensure by every means in our power that our school children grow up into healthy citizens.
The increase of mortality from cancer provides a new problem. The increase between 1919 and 1944 was from 5,657 to 8,735, and that is the measure of the task that lies ahead. It is very much to be regretted that the intervention of the war has prevented progress along the lines of the Cancer Act, 1939. It is hoped that considerable advances in the way of providing facilities for earlier diagnosis and treatment will now be possible, but the success of any move in that direction depends largely on the willingness of all concerned to co-operate, because cancer administration demands the pooling of resources, both in regard to staff and equipment, if the best results are to be secured. I would appeal most earnestly to hospital authorities, voluntary and municipal, to get together and consider how best they can use their combined resources to give the maximum advantage to cancer patients. The officers of the Department of Health are willing and

prepared to give any help in their power in the preparation of schemes to this end.
My right hon. Friend has called attention to the very substantial part that has been played in the war years by the Emergency Medical Service Hospitals. The demand for accommodation for civilian casualties in Scotland was fortunately light, and it has been possible to use for other purposes many beds which were provided as an insurance against air-raid risks. The House is familiar with the arrangement under which there have been treated in our emergency hospitals 34,200 patients from the waiting lists of the voluntary hospitals; and with the supplementary medical service, under which some 10,000 workers have been referred for examination or treatment in hospital. The Emergency Medical Service has provided some thousands of extra beds in well-equipped hospitals. With some alterations to adapt them to peace-time standards, these beds will go a long way to remedy the admitted shortage of hospital beds before the war. It will be the aim of the Department of Health to integrate these new hospitals with the permanent hospital system of the country. The precise method of doing so will be considered in relation to the post-war development of the hospital services generally.
Having dealt with Scotland, I should like now to deal with some of the questions which have arisen during the course of the Debate. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan) asked as to the number of nurses who were required. The total number of nurses employed by all the nursing services in Great Britain is a little under 200,000. The number of vacancies in these services is 32,000. These figures do not take into account additional demands for developments, such as the block system of training nurses, which means more nurses because it provides for separation of periods of study and of work in the wards, nor does it take into account the developments under the new health service.
The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) made what I might term, a typical contribution. I was only sorry that such heat was generated, both in his speech and in that of the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) on the question of the negotiations with the British Medical


Association. My right hon. Friend has fully explained the position, but I think the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) put the matter in its proper perspective. The fact is that my right hon. Friend only took the same course as any prudent Minister would take, the course which was followed by the former Secretary of State for Scotland. The hon. Member also asked for some information about war nurseries and whether or not they were to be closed down. I am informed that it is the intention—this has been made known to the local authorities—to offer these war-time nurseries to the authorities subject to an appropriate financial adjustment for their use.
They may be used either as nursery schools or as child welfare nurseries. The education and public health authorities are being asked to consider these various alternatives. Again, the hon. Member asked a question as to the upward trend of tuberculosis, which has increased between 1913 and 1943 by about 21 per cent. I am informed that this may well be due less to any actual increase in the incidence of the disease than to a greater number of cases being brought to notice through increased medical examination in connection with national service.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean accurate diagnosis?

Commander Galbraith: Many more people have been examined by radiography and other means. Another point which the hon. Gentleman put to me was as to the fear of tuberculosis retarding the recruitment of nurses and domestic workers in our hospitals. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the fear of tuberculosis undoubtedly affects recruitment for tuberculosis nursing, but I submit that this fear may be stronger in the parents of would-be nurses than in the nurses themselves. It is the duty of hospital authorities to take every precaution to safeguard the health of their staffs, and hospitals have been asked by the Health Departments and the Ministry of Labour to give nurses a medical X-ray examination and other tests before allowing them to start work in pulmonary tuberculosis wards. I am advised that there is no evidence that tuberculosis nurses run any greater risk of infection than those in a general hospital.

Mr. Gallacher: Why is it necessary to frighten nurses and staff by this special examination if there is no greater danger?

Commander Galbraith: It is a very wise precaution that every protection should be afforded to these girls, and I am surprised at the hon. Member raising that point. We had a very fine maiden speech from the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities. One felt almost inclined to agree with everything he said, but it struck me that he perhaps made things look a little too easy. I am in doubt whether I could make reference to the various points he raised, but I can say that his three principal points are, as everyone knows, having not only the full, but the active, consideration of the Government. Indeed, the whole House knows the Government's policy on these three points.

Mr. Gallacher: A policy of "do nothing."

Commander Galbraith: I cannot be led into an argument with the hon. Gentleman because it is completely out of Order to discuss any of the three points in this Debate. The hon. Member for Rochdale raised matters in connection with particular cases which have come to his notice, and I can, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, promise that they will be looked into. The hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden Guest) wanted to know whether the E.M.S. organisation would be used to fill in the gap. We must have, as he suggested, a well managed transition from the E.M.S. to the full hospital service, and that matter has the attention of the Government.
The Prime Minister has said that the full development of our health services is our objective. I am certain that the House is agreed on that, and is agreed that it is our duty to see that everything possible is done to ensure that the skill, resource, knowledge and patience of specialist, practitioner and nurse are made available to all who need them, and that the mothers, the children and the aged receive every care which we can possibly give, so that our people may have the health to enjoy that freedom for which they have striven so valiantly during these last six years—a heritage, indeed, which is theirs.

It being a quarter past Eight o'clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14, as modified by


the Order of the House of 8th March, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Resolution under consideration.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put. and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Classes I to X of the Civil Estimates, and of the Revenue Departments Estimates, the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates and the Air Estimates."

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1945

CLASS I

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class I of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS II

FOREIGN AND IMPERIAL

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class II of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS III

HOME DEPARTMENT, LAW AND JUSTICE

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class III of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS IV

EDUCATION AND BROADCASTING

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class IV of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS V

HEALTH, LABOUR AND INSURANCE

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class V of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS VI

TRADE, INDUSTRY AND TRANSPORT

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VI of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS VII

COMMON SERVICES (WORKS, STATIONERY, ETC.)

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VII of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS VIII

NON-EFFECTIVE CHARGES (PENSIONS)

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VIII of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS IX

EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS TO LOCAL REVENUES

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IX of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS X

WAR SERVICES

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class X of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1945

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Revenue Departments Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1945

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Navy Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1945

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Army Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1945

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Air Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [8th June]

Resolution reported:
That a Supplementary Sum not exceeding £1,750,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefore by Parliament for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; for relief and rehabilitation in areas brought under the control of any of the United Nations; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war.
Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS [11th June]

Resolution reported:
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, the sum of £2,206,991,334 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Peake.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

"to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-six, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

Orders of the Day — POSTPONEMENT OF POLLING DAY BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SCHEDULE.—(Constituencies to which Act applies.)

Sir Charles Edwards: I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, col. 1, at end, insert "Newport."
8.20 p.m.
I have here a statement from the people of Newport, and they are complaining that there will be large numbers of people on holiday in the same way as in other places included in the Schedule. The town clerk addressed a communication to the Home Secretary on 3rd June asking that consideration be given to the alteration of the election at Newport from 5th July to 12th July, because it had come to his knowledge that over 5,000 workers would be on holiday during the week ending 7th July and that this would affect approximately 10,000 voters. The following factories are affected: Messrs. Lysaghts, where over 2,000 men will be on holiday; Newport Royal Ordnance factory, where over 2,000 men will be on holiday; and another factory, Messrs. E. W. King, where over 1,200 will be on holiday, making a total of 5,200. It is estimated that this would mean 10,000 voters away from Newport on 5th July. I believe that they would exceed 10,000a—I would not be surprised if the number was 15,000—and for a borough like Newport it is a serious thing for so many people to be away when an election is held. I hope the Home Secretary will include Newport in the Schedule, so that it is put in the same position as those which have been accepted. It seems to me to be a small thing to add another borough to the list.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Donald Somervell): This was one of the constituencies which was discussed on one of the preliminary lists, and we did our best to find out what were the facts.

Sir C. Edwards: It was not discussed in the House, was it?

Sir D. Somervell: No, it was discussed with the hon. Gentleman and the people locally. In dealing with this prob-


lem we have had our difficulties and we have done our best. Our information was that the numbers affected were considerably less than those which the right hon. Gentleman has given. It is a large-ish electorate; there would be a number of people away on the 12th July as well as on the 5th July, and the general wish on the whole was against a postponement. For that reason we did not put this constituency in the Bill. As I said yesterday, we have done our best. We may have made a mistake here and there, but we have done our best to meet the general wishes of those in the constituencies, so far as we have been able to ascertain.
I do feel it would be wrong and unfair at this stage of the proceedings to alter what has been accepted in this Bill. Hon. Members and those who may be standing against them will have made their arrangements and booked halls. They may have arranged for other speakers to attend. I believe that with regard to this constituency there was a strong feeling against postponement, and though it was recognised—and that was why we made the inquiries that we did—that these places have holidays in progress on 5th July, there will be other people away on 12th July, and on the general balance of convenience we came to the conclusion that we should be doing what was right in omitting this borough from the Schedule. I am afraid that in my view and the view of the Government it would be wrong at this stage of the proceedings to put Newport into the Schedule.

Mr. Bowles: About two weeks ago I put a Question to the Prime Minister as to what percentage of absentee voters he thought would qualify a constituency for inclusion in the Schedule of constituencies which would have a different polling day from 5th July. He gave an answer which to me was not very satisfactory. I cannot understand the answer that because halls have been booked or 10,000 or 15,000 people in the town of Newport would be away it should really make no difference. After all, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary said that this had been discussed and thought over. The Bill was only known in detail on Friday morning. I do not know what discussions have taken place in the constituency to which the right hon. Gentle-

man the Member for Bedwellty (Sir C. Edwards) referred. I am certain that so far as Coventry is concerned, to which I would like to refer by way of example if I may, something like 22,000 people will be away during the week including 5th July, another 22,000 will be away during the week including 12th July, and another 22,000 will be away in the week including 19th July. I wonder what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has got to say about the conversations which have taken place with regard to Coventry since we knew that Coventry was not in the Bill.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: When we have been referring to local authorities or persons who are speaking for a town, it has always baffled me as to who actually has spoken for that town. I think it is of paramount importance to bear in mind that although we who have been accustomed to local government know what is meant by "the usual channels," few other people know the meaning of "the usual channels." Lots of people do not like the usual channels. What are the usual channels in a situation such as this? My right hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Sir C. Edwards) seemed to put up a reasonable case, and he appeared to me to present evidence which was very convincing.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, on the other hand, simply tells the Committee that certain people have been consulted and that on balance the result of that consultation seemed to be in favour of 5th July. Then he has a further argument. He says they have booked halls and speakers. But really, that is not very convincing, because if they have booked halls and they have booked them on the last night before the evening of the poll, they get their second breath a week after, and they can book some more halls, which makes the election all the more exciting, and the electorate are all the better informed. In fact, you probably get a more intelligent result. Of course, you will not be able to influence them like you did in the good old days. In my boyhood it used to be said, "What Manchester thinks to-day the rest of the country thinks to-morrow," because the Manchester election result used to come out first.
I am wondering if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would care to review this matter again. If he does not feel so


disposed we ought to press him to tell us whom he has consulted. Did he meet the mayor? I am sure it was not the town clerk, because these gentlemen are so impartial, although they are really good folk. Did he consult with the local chambers of commerce? They are invariably so unreliable on this issue. Was it the local Labour Party or the local Conservative Party? Who was it who gave him this information? I would beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be a little more amenable to the reasoning of my right hon. Friend.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I feel that the Home Secretary has not given satisfaction in his reply on this Amendment. My right hon. Friend read out that the town clerk of Newport addressed a communication to the Home Secretary on this matter. It does not say on whose instructions he addressed the letter, but I assume it was on the instruction of the local authority. In that letter the Home Secretary was asked to give consideration to the fact that was established about Newport, that something like 10,000 electors would be away on polling day. The Home Secretary has not answered that at all. All he has said is that the words "general consultation" were used. There was general agreement. With whom? With whom were these consultations carried on? Was everybody represented in these consultations? What efforts were made to establish the facts? I think I am entitled to put those questions. Was the hon. and gallant Member for Newport consulted, and, if so, what was the nature of his representation? Was it contrary to the request of the local authority? I am sure that the Home Secretary will agree that, in these matters, party advantage ought not to be taken. Decision should be made on the facts. Has the Home Secretary really ascertained the facts in Newport? Does he mean to say, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Sir C. Edwards), that, while it is accepted that some 10,000 electors will probably be on holiday on 5th July, he has sought any information as to how many will be away on 12th July and, if he has, how many? What is the relation of the figures? Is the number on 12th July greater than on 5th July? If it is, what is the number?
We are entitled to have a little more information than he has given. It is no good brushing the matter aside like this. If polling day is to be postponed in any constituency, let it 'be dome on the basis of the facts, but do not refrain from postponing it in any one constituency because of some political advantage which, it is thought, may arise. I would ask the Home Secretary to be more explicit with the House, and to let us have that information. If the Home Secretary can satisfy us, on he information he has, that his decision is the right one, I do not think my right hon. Friend will press his Amendment. At the moment, however, no facts are before the Committee.

Mr. Silverman: I said yesterday on the Second Reading—and I meant what I said, and will repeat it now—that it did seem to me that the Government really had made an attempt in this Bill to do the fair thing without consideration of party interest. It is perfectly true, as it turned out, that there were more Members on the other side who were interested than on this side, but that does not really matter in the least because no one can tell to whose advantage a postponement, or failure to postpone, may work out until the declaration of the poll. I was prepared to congratulate, and did congratulate, the Government on having made the best of what was, admittedly, a bad job, the bad job having been created by what, we think, is the unfortunate date of the Election. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me that in connection with a Bill of this kind—which has been planned hi order to remove any sense of injustice that would otherwise have been created because a large number of people had made arrangements which they could not cancel before the date of the Election was known—it becomes very important, indeed, that the sense of grievance should be removed. You only half do your job, if you leave a lot of people in another constituency, under the impression, no matter how false, that, in fact, party considerations in that particular constituency prevailed over the argument of equity.
I have heard on these Benches to-day a number of my hon. Friends saying that they are not satisfied in the case of Newport. They are not unreasonable people. This is not a party issue thrown from


side to side, and no one is trying to make party capital out of it. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, that if my hon. Friends are not satisfied, something has gone wrong, because the thing ought to have been so handled that nobody would feel that the wrong thing had been done. What is suggested went wrong here? It is, that not enough inquiries were made; that the town clerk was an impartial person, but was not in a good position to judge whether there should be a postponement or not; that he said there should be a postponement, and then somebody else decided there should not be. I think my right hon. Friend would be well advised, in this instance, to explain how it was that the opinion of an impartial authority, who, no doubt, would be the legal adviser to the returning officer in the district, was rejected and something else done.
In the old days, before 1918, the returning officer used to settle when polling day should be, and he used to do it by consulting all the interests on all sides, and by negotiation between the various sides. The returning officer exercised the discretion, and himself chose the date. The first idea, when we were considering this Bill, was to give the returning officer a similar discretion, but the Government decided—and I am not quarrelling with them—that the responsibility should not be shuffled off on to the returning officer on the spot, but taken by the Government, and taken by this House. That only makes it all the more important that all the people interested shall be satisfied that the decision reached was really that of the majority of the people affected, and I think the right hon. Gentleman should explain what happened in this case.

Lieut.-Commander Bell: I am at the disadvantage of not having had notice of this Amendment, but I would like to explain what the position was as it appeared to me. I was informed that it was proposed to include the Newport constituency in the Schedule very shortly before the Bill was due to be printed. I had very little opportunity to investigate the actual circumstances of this matter. I did, however, endeavour to get in touch with everybody interested. I got in touch with the town clerk and with the other two candidates, and I found that there was no desire to have the date of Polling Day altered in the case of this constituency.

Mr. Silverman: I thought the town clerk informed my hon. and gallant Friend to that effect.

Lieut.-Commander Bell: The town clerk informed me that he had put forward the circumstances to the Home Office because he thought it was his duty to do so, circumstances which might tend to lead the Home Secretary to decide that Polling Day should be deferred. I am somewhat embarrassed in this matter because I had conversations with these people, and I do not know to what extent I am at liberty to divulge them. That applies, particularly, to the candidates. I need hardly say, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) will appreciate, that there are no party considerations in this at all. I will not go into detail, but I do not think there: is anything in it at all. That is the opinion I formed from my recent experience of the constituency. It may be, of course, that they have changed in the last few weeks, but my belief is, as I have said, that there is nothing of the party issue in it at all.
It is obviously desirable, on the general issue, that the constituency should poll on the standard day unless there is a real reason to the contrary. Obviously, the general feeling in the constituency will be that, having just had eight weeks of intensive electioneering, they do not want any more than they really need to have. I do not doubt that that will also be the personal opinion of the candidates. I think that will also be the general approach to the subject. I approached the other two candidates concerned. One was definitely in favour of 5th July and the other found it impossible to express any preference. I represented these facts to the Home Secretary. The town clerk was of the opinion that the case he put up was rather weak, but that it was his duty to submit the circumstances as he found them. There was the opinion of the candidates concerned, and finally, what I conceived to be the general feeling of the town, that unless there were good reasons they would naturally prefer a short campaign.
The decision is not mine; I am not attempting to take any responsibility for it. I only wish to explain the circumstances in so far as they concern myself. The Home Secretary makes the decision in this matter, and those were the con-


siderations which I very hastily presented to him. I feel that under those circumstances lie has rightly decided that the constituency should not be included in the Bill. Had I known that there was any strong feeling that the date should be delayed, I should certainly have conveyed that impression to him, but after approaching the Socialist candidate and finding there was no such feeling in his mind, I naturally concluded that there was no general desire that polling day should be postponed. I presented the facts purely as I found them, without any consideration of party advantage, to the Home Secretary, to be added to the other facts already at his disposal, which he had received from the local town authorities. It is no doubt on those representations together that he has made his decision,

8.45 p.m.

Sir Robert Young: Yesterday I raised a similar question to that which is now before the Committee, and the Home Secretary referred to what I regard and what he probably regards as "the usual channels." It puzzled me very much how ageement was to be reached, and I have here the words he used yesterday, which were:
If there was overwhelming evidence, however, that the sitting Member and his opponent or his several opponents and the town clerk and all concerned were agreed that it should be put in I am not saying that we should not consider it."—[Official Report, nth June 1945; Vol. 411, col. 1393.]
Firstly, I wish to object to the statement that this is a matter for Parliamentary candidates to decide. The consideration ought to be the well-being of the constituency, and how to give the vote to as many as possible in the constituency. Consequently, when the right lion, and learned Gentleman referred me to my opponent or opponents, it is a fact that, strange to say, up to last Saturday night I had no opponent. Consequently, I could not get into touch with my opponent or opponents. Now there is one, and I know where I am. The other part of the statement was that I could get into touch with the town clerk. Unknown to the right hon. and learned Gentleman I had done so. Having done that, I think I was released of all responsibility. It should be the duty of the town clerk to look to the welfare of the constituency.
It is not a matter in which candidates should be allowed to interfere at all. If the present position ever arises again the returning officer should be the man who makes investigations in the constituency, and determines and reports to the Home Secretary what is best in the circumstances. That would get us out of these difficulties. I trust that there will never be another occasion when we require to have an election in the holiday months. Take my constituency as an example. For reasons I have explained to the Home Secretary I do not intend to move the Amendment I have put down—in Schedule, page 2, line 25, column 2, at end, insert "Newton." The first people who objected were the people to whom I referred yesterday. After what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said yesterday I again got into touch with various parts of my constituency. No day in July would suit me. Mine is a county constituency surrounded by four boroughs which have voters working in them. The result is that neither 12th July nor 19th July, nor 5th July, would suit all my constituents. That is the reason why I have withdrawn the Amendment. Naturally I do not want one part of the constituency to be advantaged as against the other. I object to the use in this matter of "the usual channels" between political opponents. It ought to be left entirely in the hands of the town clerk.

Mr. James Griffiths: The matter has now been raised in the House of Commons, and I ask the Home Secretary to reconsider it in the light of that fact. I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member for Newport (Lieut.-Commander Bell) came into the Chamber. As I understand, after meeting some of my friends from Newport, they went to see the town clerk because they discovered that some very important works in Newport had arranged to take their holidays during that week. Everybody who knows Newport knows that there are very important works there, one of them having 2,000 employees. That concern is a steel works, and the workers have put in 12 months of very hard work. Obviously, they will be taking their holidays with their families. There is the Newport Royal Ordnance Factory, which has arranged to take its holiday during that week.

Lieut.-Commander Bell: The hon. Member should perhaps make it clear


that only a very small part of the Royal Ordnance Factory is affected.

Mr. Griffiths: If I was wrong, I apologise. I understood that the whole of it would be on holiday. In any case, there will be a substantial number of work people taking their holiday that week. Those facts were communicated to the town clerk. He thought the circum stances were sufficient to warrant him writing to the Home Secretary. If he had thought that those circumstances would not make any difference he would not have done anything. That he brought those facts to the notice of the Home Secretary was a clear indication that he was disturbed about it and felt it should be reconsidered. If these works, which have the largest number of employees in Newport, are having a holiday that week, it is quite clear that an important section of the community will be deprived of voting. That is the important thing, not whether this candidate or that candidate is elected, but whether those dates will give the best opportunity for the largest representative vote of that constituency. Is there any dispute between anyone that the 12th would be better—

Lieut.-Commander Bell: I cannot say. The hon. Member will appreciate that 2,000 or 3,000 is not a large proportion out of 60,000. It is beyond the knowledge of man to fix a date in the holiday months which will be suitable for everyone.

Mr. Griffiths: That is perfectly true, but we find that in that particular week Lysaght's, the Royal Ordnance Factory and Messrs. E. W. Hill are having their holidays. As I understand it our local people went to see the town clerk, who made investigations, and he thought the matter sufficiently serious for him to write to the Home Secretary about it. If the House of Commons takes upon itself the responsibility of saying to the people of Newport that they must vote on 5th July, and not on any other day, we shall be depriving numbers of people of the opportunity to vote.

Colonel Sir Arthur Evans: I hope that the Home Secretary and the Committee will not be persuaded by the plea of the hon. Gentleman, because I do not think he has produced sufficient evidence to justify a change in the Bill at this late stage. It is true

that Lysaght's will be on holiday on 5th July, and that a very small number of employees at the Royal Ordnance Factory will be on holiday at that date. But it is true that a large number of employees of small firms will be on holiday in the following week; and, in the aggregate, the number of people affected would be greater if the Amendment were accepted.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We know that a number of people will be on holiday on 5th July, but will the hon. and gallant Member tell us which works will be on holiday in the other week?

Sir A. Evans: I have no knowledge about that; nor has my hon. Friend. I suggest that before the town clerk of Newport made representations to the Home Office he should have taken steps to find out what people would be on holiday on 12th July. Whatever date we choose, between May and September, a certain number of workers, both in the Principality of Wales and in England, are bound to be on holiday. That is inevitable. I would say, with great respect, that I think my hon. Friend is seeking to convince the House that the election should not take place in July at all, but in October. In order to justify the moving of this Amendment at this late stage my hon. Friend should have produced evidence that on the date which he proposes there will not be a number of people in Newport, employed in small concerns, who will not be able to avail themselves of the franchise.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Does my hon. and gallant Friend regard the letter from the town clerk as being unimportant?

Sir A. Evans: I do not regard it as being unimportant. But I suggest that there are other interests which would have a perfect right to make representations if time were available. Other firms of which the town clerk probably has no knowledge have already made their arrangements. The time to suggest the inclusion of Newport was following the Prime Minister's offer to have this matter discussed through the usual channels. That would have given an opportunity for inquiry. This Amendment is moved in the interests of one point of view only, and in the aggregate such a change is not justified.

Mr. Bowles: The hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Sir A. Evans)


has talked as if we had known for quite a long time what constituencies were going to be dealt with, or even that the concession was going to be made at all. The information was given by the Prime Minister only a week ago; the Bill was available in the Vote Office only on Friday; then came the week-end, and on Monday we had the Second Reading. As for the example I gave in my earlier speech, the Government have specifically requested certain Government firms, Royal Ordnance factories, and so on, to stagger their holidays. It was at the Government's request that in Coventry this particular thing took place. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) will support me, because I think he agrees with what I am saying. In the first three weeks of July 22,000 workers of Coventry are away on holiday, at the Government's specific request. I think that a Home Secretary new to his job should give way on this issue. I am not the Member for Coventry, and I am not personally interested, but I have been asked by many workers in Coventry to raise this matter. In view of what has been said, the Home Secretary would be doing something of importance to democracy if he accepted the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: I hope nothing will be done to extend the ambit of a Bill which, as I tried to explain on Second Reading, was always bad in principle. We should adhere to the principle of having one polling day, and if people do not choose to exert themselves to vote they should not have exceptions made to suit them. The remarks I made last night were greeted with some derision by hon. Members opposite, but they are proving to be correct. Once you accept this principle you have to extend it to meet every case. When the subject was first mooted, Members were popping up all over the place to say, "What about my constituency?"

Mr. Mathers: Is it in Order for the hon. and gallant Member to condemn the Bill root and branch oh this Amendment?

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): No, the hon. and gallant Member should deal with the Amendment only.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: May I say that the principle is applicable to any Amendment? Any one of us could put down an Amendment.

The Deputy-Chairman: We are discussing the Amendment, not tine Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: I accept your Ruling, Sir Charles. All I will say is that the damage that I think this Bill has done to the principle should not he extended by accepting an Amendment of this kind.

9.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Bell: There are one or two -points which I did not raise in my first speech, because I came in when the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) was speaking, and did not know what had been said before. The inclusion of the Newport constituency would be an unwarrantable extension of the principle underlying this Bill. The conception was that constituencies which had a generally-recognised holiday, such as a wake, when the great majority of the townspeople by tradition left the neighbourhood, should not vote during that holiday. In towns like that, there should be this special provision made, and I must say that, when I first heard that it was proposed to include Newport in the Schedule, I was really rather astonished, because though the number of people concerned may be a matter of argument, it cannot be large. No-one can be entirely accurate about a thing nice this, because Newport is not a one-works place. It is a town of perhaps a dozen large factories and a very large area in which factories are not a predominant feature at all, primarily, indeed, it is a docks town and not a factory town, and you have not got this unitary conception of Newport as you have in connection with other places.
So far as I could make out in the limited time which I had at my disposal, the gross number of people concerned would not exceed 5,000, and would probably be considerably less. One has also to remember that not all the people concerned are over 21 or resident in the Division. Many of the workpeople in Newport live outside the boundaries of the Parliamentary borough. They actually come into the constituency of the hon. Member for Monmouthshire. A great many are boys and girls under 21, and even if it is true that they are on holiday from work, it is by no means true that they are all going to


Blackpool. It is not a mass trek to the seaside, but a week's paid leave or holiday from work. When you work it all out and make all just allowances you reach the conclusion that something like 2,000 people, or perhaps it may be 1,500, will be out of the district on 5th July. I should not say disfranchised, for that is overstating the case, but perhaps 1,500 or 2,000 may be put in the position in which they would have to travel back to vote.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the hon. And gallant Member permit me? When he said it was proposed to include Newport in the Schedule, will he indicate who has proposed to include it?

Lieut.-Commander Bell: I think it was in the first draft of the Bill, and the hon. Member will appreciate that that was a very late stage. I have no idea at whose suggestion it was included. The first thing that suggested itself was that the Socialist candidate, or the Socialist Party, in Newport had moved to include it, but, on enquiries from the town clerk, I was informed that that was not the case, and that he had simply noted that fact and was under the impression that it was the duty of every town clerk to forward any facts which might be relevant, in which I think he is entirely correct. I am very far from criticising the town clerk. I do not think he felt that it was his duty to express any opinion upon the sufficiency of the evidence he was forwarding. I think he simply stated the facts, sent them to the Home Office, and felt he had done his duty, and I think he had. I do not think we should say that the town authorities had indicated that, in their view, polling day should be 12th July; they did not indicate, either, their view that it should be 5th July. They sent up the facts for what they were worth and left it to the Government. I think that really deals with the point which the hon. Member opposite raised that the town authorities had asked for this. That is really not the case.
I was quite unaware of any desire on the Socialist side that the polling day should be changed, and I only wish that they had told me when I asked them, because I did, of course, ask them. I agree with the hon. Member opposite that it is not a matter for the candidates, but for the town authorities and the Home Secretary, but, at the same time, one does

go to the obvious people to get their reactions, and I am sorry that this other reaction was not brought to my notice. I feel that in the circumstances we cannot honestly say that the postponement to 12th July would result in fewer people being inconvenienced in voting. One must guard against the temptation of thinking of voters as blocks of workers in factories. There are many people in offices, black-coated workers, and all the people whom one cannot describe under any label at all, and it is obvious that from now on, as one week succeeds another, a greater number of the general public will be going on holiday. I would point out that the actual works in question here, Lysaght's, for example, is a very important works in Newport, but it is not the largest, nor even I believe the second largest, and, as I said at the beginning of my speech, Newport is by no means a one-factory town. There are a great many factories, and it was impossible for me to inquire into who would exactly be on holiday on 12th July. I really do not know. It was an impossible inquiry for me to make in the short time at my disposal, and I do not think that the town clerk would be in a position to find that out either. It is difficult enough to find out who will be on holiday on 5th July, but I feel that the Committee should say that the evidence does not lead us to believe that there will be substantially more people away on 5th July than there will be on 12th July, and unless there are substantially more away on one date than the other, we should adhere to the standard polling day.

Sir D. Somervell: I should be sorry if I got into controversy with any hon. Gentleman in any part of the Committee over this matter. I entirely agree with what has been said that no one in dealing with this difficult problem has been actuated by any party motive. But the other point that I have had in mind in trying to deal with it is, that, though we had consulted town clerks and members of this House, I felt that if there was any criticism or odium it would be wrong if it was directed to any shoulders but mine. I am very grateful—and I am sure the Committee is—to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newport (Lieut.-Commander Bell) for what he has told us about the information which he obtained and which he gave to the Home Office. The town clerk in this matter


acted correctly. The statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was made on 31st May, little more than a week ago, and he invited both Members of this House and town clerks to send information which they thought might be relevant to the Home Office, or to the Scottish Office, as the case might be, and undoubtedly the town clerk of Newport, in sending the information he did, was acting correctly and properly. He was not expressing a view but was saying, "Here is certain information which I think you ought to consider." Let us be clear; he acted in response to the invitation of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and very properly. The information having reached us, we took it up, and we consulted my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newport.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Before consulting the hon. and gallant Member for Newport (Lieut.-Commander Bell), was the town of Newport actually included in the first draft of the Bill?

Sir D. Somervell: No. There was an unofficial list of Members who were communicated with who represented seats as to which we had information that there might be a big holiday on 5th July. In many cases the investigations resulted in what my hon. and gallant Friend had told us happened in Newport, that although there was a holiday and you could pick out the works whose employees would be away on 5th July, when you came to consider who would be away on 12th July, though you might not be able to identify very easily those coming from a particular works, there was a substantial number of people away and there was very little in it on balance. I would also like to reinforce what my hon. and gallant Friend has said on another point. This Bill, with the Schedule to it, was intended, and intended only, to deal with cases where, to use the Prime Minister's words, "there was something in the nature of a mass holiday," and of course the type of case which led to this Bill was that of the Lancashire wakes where you get a general exodus from the division, going up to a very considerable precentage of the population. It was never intended, nor would it have been possible, to conduct the necessary investigations in each constituency as to whether, as between the 5th and the 12th, there might be a

slight balance in favour of one or the other. The intention of the Bill—and it had to be and must remain restricted—is that in cases where you could show something in the nature of a mass holiday on 5th July, where nothing of the sort was occurring on 12th July, then you should postpone polling day to 12th July. In the main, however, though I do not agree with all that my hon. and learned Friend behind me said about this Bill last night or to-night, prima facie constituencies must poll on 5th July and it is only in a case where you can say that there is evidence of a mass holiday in progress on the former day, whereas on the latter day there would only be a comparatively small number away, that the Government's intention was to postpone Polling Day.

Mr. Bowles: What about the 22,000 in Coventry?

Sir D. Somervell: I am talking about the Amendment. I said last night that Coventry raises quite a different problem. So far as Newport is concerned, I hope the Committee will agree with what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newport has said. It was the view which we had come to. He has amplified the evidence, and I am extremely grateful to him for the assistance he gave us and the assistance he has given the Committee to night on this Amendment. I hope the Committee will feel that the decision we came to, having regard to the general principle of the Bill, was right, and that the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman opposite should not be accepted.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Seaborne Davies: After listening to this Debate, I feel one word would come very appropriately from this bench. I think we all feel some sympathy with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newport (Lieut.-Commander Bell). The impression may go out that he in some way has unfairly tried to influence the decision on this matter. I have a personal friend fighting against him in Newport and had I the time I should go to speak against the hon. and gallant Gentleman. But to be quite fair to him, I think we should make it clear that he seems to have acted throughout most properly in the matter.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Bowles: I desire to move, in line 34, at end, add:

Part III


Constituencies in which Polling Day is to be 23rd July, 1945


Parliamentary Borough.
Division (if any).


Coventry …
East.



West.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry, but that Amendment is out of Order.

Mr. Bowles: Well, then I would like to ask the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) on the Motion, "That the Schedule be agreed to," to say what his views are about his own constituency in this matter.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot do that on the Schedule, because that is not in it.

Captain Strickland: Is it possible for us to have a discussion on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"?

The Deputy-Chairman: Both Clauses were put some time ago; we are now on the Schedule.

Captain Strickland: The Amendment moved just now was not an Amendment to the Schedule, but a new Amendment, I think.

The Deputy-Chairman: No, it was an Amendment to the Schedule.

Mr. Mathers: I know you dealt with a point of Order, Sir Charles, with regard to a proposal to add to the Schedule, and said that to put this in without having dealt with the previous Amendment would not make sense. But if it were the view of the Committee that this item should go into the Schedule, would it not be necessary then to say that provision ought to be made for this coming into the Bill?

The Deputy-Chairman: The first Amendment, which was not called, was to put in a new paragraph (c) into Clause 1. The Amendment to the Schedule follows on that, and without the first Amendment would not make sense.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — TREASON BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel SIR CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

9.19 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move,
That the Electoral Registration(No. 2) Regulations, 1945, dated 29th May, 1945, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Parliamentary Electors (War-Time Registration) Acts, 1943 and 1944, and the Representation of the People Act, 1945, a copy of which Regulations was presented on 30th May, be approved.
These Regulations are submitted in accordance with Section 20 of the Parliamentary Electors (War-Time Registration) Act, 1943, and Section 37 of the Representation of the People Act, 1945. These Regulations deal with the October register. They set out the timetable, and provide for the compilation of the lists for claims and so on, and they make the necessary adaptations of the existing code for the purpose of the compilation of that register. The October register, as the House knows, covers not only Parliamentary but local government elections, and these Regulations contain the necessary provisions for the local government aspect of the matter. In drawing up the Regulations we have taken the opportunity of making one or two alterations in the existing code, to which I. will refer shortly, and we have endeavoured to simplify what is necessarily a complicated form, namely, the form of application to be placed on the business premises register. I think I can best put the matter before the House by going briefly through the paragraphs in order to draw attention to those to which I think attention ought to be drawn.
The first three paragraphs are formal. They contain the definitions and apply the existing code, subject to modifications in the Regulations themselves. In Regulation 4, sub-paragraphs (a, b, c, and d) of paragraph (1) set out the timetables,


with the various dates for the compilation of the October register. Paragraph 4 (1, e) extends the time for making applications to be entered in the absent voters' list from nine days after publication of the electors' lists, which is the existing rule, until the date of His Majesty's Proclamation in the case of the General Election and until the date on which the writ is received in the case of a by-election. There will, of course, be very considerable movements of population in the months to be covered, and therefore we thought it right to make this extension of time. Paragraph. 4 (ii) makes adaptations and repeals a section which is no longer required. Paragraph 5 deals with an important matter on which I should like to say a word or two and tell the House of instructions which I am having issued. It deals with the notice inviting applications for registration on the business premises register. As the House knows, on the existing register there were a number of cases in which those applications were not made in time. This paragraph provides that the notice inviting applications is to be published within eight days of the qualifying date, that is, 30th June, and instructions have been given to registration officers that in the case of those who are at present on the business premises register, the necessary form should be sent to them without waiting for them to apply.

Mr. Driberg: Is that a reversal of the recent policy of contracting in, so to speak?

Sir D. Somervell: I am not sure I follow the hon. Member. This started in the May register, which is the one which is now operative. We then had to ask everybody to apply. There were some cases where applications were not received in time. We are now dealing with October, and there will be already on the existing May register a number of people who have been registered in respect of business premises. The instructions to which I have referred are that in those cases where someone is already on the May business premises register, he is to have the form sent to him instead of having to write for it or come and get it. It is to be sent to the address at which he is registered and it will be a reminder to him to fill it up and return it.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: What about those people who have failed to get this vote because they have applied to the wrong place?

Sir D. Somervell: I think my hon. Friend is raising a point with regard to the existing Register. These Regulations deal with the October Register. There are two steps that I propose to take which I hope will lead to many fewer omissions than exist at present. First, the form is to be sent to those at present on the Business Register. The second point is that applications to toe on the Business Premises Register must be in by the end of July, and I am proposing to take steps to see that attention is drawn to this by notices in the Press. I hope that that will assist in seeing that, as far as this part of the Register is concerned, it will be much more complete than it is at present.

Mr. Driberg: The onus will still be on the business voter to apply.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: Take my division, in which there are four places with a returning officer at one place. The applicant applies to one of these places, and the notice is passed on and passed and passed on and the time goes. What happens in a case like that?

Sir D. Somervell: If my hon. Friend will communicate with me I will certainly see whether, in the publicity which I propose to give, I can give guidance to prevent that sort of case occurring.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: My right hon. and learned Friend knows—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): We are not in Committee, and it hardly seems relevant even then.

Sir D. Somervell: In answer to the hon. Member opposite, the man must apply. That is necessary, because otherwise we shall not have the information we require. Paragraph 8 enables applications to be on the Business Premises Register to be made either by the spouse or, if there is no spouse, the business manager of the person entitled if that person is a member of the Forces or a seaman. Paragraph 9 also deals with a point to which I think hon. Members will like to have their attention drawn. It enables claims that a name has been wrongly omitted from the list to be made either by the person himself or on his behalf. This restores the


old position, where claims of this kind could be made by agents or others on behalf of the person putting forward the claim. Paragraphs 13 and 15 deal with the ratepayers' register. Under the 1945 Act anyone who is on the Register as a Parliamentary voter automatically has a local government vote in respect of the premises on which his registration was based, but of course he may have qualifications as a local government voter in some other area. In such a case these paragraphs provide that he must make his application on the form contained at the end and, broadly speaking, the applicable code is the same as that which applies to applications to be on the Business Premises Register. Paragraphs 16 to 18 deal with peers. Peers do not, of course, have a Parliamentary vote, but they have a local government vote. As regards this, we have applied to peers in the Forces the same sort of principle as is applied to others in the Forces in respect of their Parliamentary votes, which I am sure the House will consider reasonable.

Mr. Driberg: In paragraph 18 there is a provision that a peer's name is to be marked with an L. Does that indicate that he is a learner?

Sir D. Somervell: No, it indicates "local government," and it was thought right, in order to prevent possible mistakes arising, to mark the distinction in that way.

9.31 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert Acland-Troyte: I would like to draw attention to a point in connection with the way in which the registers are made up. People are often registered in parishes according to their postal addresses and not according to the parishes in which they live. The result is that on tie present register there are people who live in my constituency but who will have to vote in a different constituency. That will happen much more in the case of local government electors. Something ought to be done to prevent this by putting on people with local knowledge to make up the registers; otherwise, people will be registered in the wrong local government areas.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. Driberg: We hope that the October register will for considerably more complete and accurate than the May register.

I should like to know what steps the right hon. and learned Gentleman is taking to see that that shall be so. Is he, for instance, pressing the Service Departments for any further releases of the staff needed by the registration officers to assist them in compiling the register. We have been assured by those who have been working oh the May register that they have only just been able to get it done and that their machinery has been strained almost to breaking point. Can we take it that the October register will be more complete and thorough?

Mr. Mathers: These Regulations do not apply to Scotland. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say anything about the Scottish Regulations?

9.33 p.m.

Sir D. Somervell: With the leave of the House, I would like to reply to the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton (Sir G. Acland-Troyte). The point about the local government vote is one that we have in mind. It would be impossible to alter the general principle that the Parliamentary register, which is also the local government register, is to be based on national registration. That is provided for by the Act, and we cannot alter it. I agree that there may be cases where a man is registered at a particular address, but is qualified as a local government voter in respect of some other address. I will certainly consider whether in the publicity which, as I said, might be useful with regard to business premises we might also draw attention to that.

Sir G. Acland-Troyte: It is very often in the wrong place.

Sir D. Somervell: That may not be wholly the fault of the Government, because one puts forward one's address for registration. With regard to the other point, I agree that the people concerned have been very hard pressed, and I will certainly consider whether steps can be taken to meet this point adequately. We are trying by these Regulations and by various other steps which have been taken to see that this October register is accurate and as complete as may be. In reply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers), these Regulations do apply to Scotland.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Electoral Registration (No. 2) Regulations. 1945. dated 29th May, 1945, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Parliamentary Electors (War-Time Registration) Acts, 1943 and 1944, and the Representation of the People Act, 1945, a copy of which Regulations was presented on 30th May, be approved.

Orders of the Day — AFRICAN SOLDIERS (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Beechman.]

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Sorensen: I wish to raise the question of the alleged whipping and maltreatment of West African soldiers. Over some four years I have had various kinds of information brought to me, sometimes by white people and sometimes by Africans, complaining in various ways of the treatment of African soldiers. Naturally, I made a great allowance for exaggeration, distortion or imagination, but I could not help feeling that in some cases there was some truth in the assertions which were made. I put a number of Questions down to the Secretary of State for War. I elicited the fact, for instance, that there are, I think, some 30 or 40 offences in the prisons of West Africa which might involve the whipping of those detained. Apart from that I was very concerned with the fact that there were many offences committed by West African soldiers particularly which sometimes, at least, brought to them what I would describe as the medieval and deplorable punishment of whipping.
I do not suggest for a moment that the regular or the irregular practice of this punishment is widespread. It is more than probable that it occurs only here and there and under certain circumstances, but I want the House to accept this assurance that I have not pursued this matter lightly or maliciously. In fact, I held my hand until the war was over lest anything I said might be used by the enemy against us. I only raise this matter now because I am very deeply concerned in the matter, and also I feel there may be something in the many allegations which have reached me from various sources. I, therefore, want to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary, who I understand will reply to the few words I have to say, whether the

specific allegations J quoted to him in the letter from an African soldier are capable of denial. I cannot help feeling there may be some truth in them.
Is it or is it not true that it has been the practice to try and to punish some of the African soldiers by making them bear heavy loads, or by holding large stones in their hands? It has been stated to me that sometimes the punishment has been even more grievous than that. I do not necessarily accept it as truth; I only want to know. In the letter which I forwarded to the War Office certain definite statements were made. I want to know what is the result of the somewhat lengthy inquiry into these allegations. I think it is not denied that there are certain punishments such as whipping or flogging imposed by courts martial. I also want to say that from many quarters I have heard it alleged that, irregularly decided by courts martial, floggings did take place. I would like to say more on this, but I will conclude by abjectly apologising to the House, and to the Parliamentary Secretary who is to reply, for having to dash away to catch a train. The other point is that while I do not believe that all the assertions are true, yet I do believe that sometimes, here and there irregular happenings do take place, and for the sake of our good name, reputation, and the ever-increasing spirit of fraternity between the white man and the black, I earnestly exhort the Parliamentary Secretary to see whether irregular floggings can be abolished altogether, or some consideration given on the point.

9.41 p.m.

Captain Prescott: As I was attached to the West African Frontier Force and had some experience as to the manner in which these troops were treated and disciplined, I think I should give the House the benefit of my experience, if I may term it so without impertinence. It is, of course, true that for some offences against the military code it is possible for a court-martial to award a sentence of whipping. I hope I shall not fee thought in any way un Christian or unsympathetic towards native troops when I say that it is not possible to treat them or discipline them in the same way as European troops. They expect a different kind of treatment; they are accustomed to a different way of life, and they do not regard a whipping—that is not really the


correct term, neither is beating—in the same way as European troops.
I know from personal experience that many of them definitely prefer a form of corporal punishment to a stoppage of pay, detention, or any other alternative form of punishment. If it be administered in a humane manner, and if they be justly treated, then there is still, I think, some thing to be said for the power of corporal punishment remaining in the hands of a court-martial, and for them to be allowed to award it. It is perfectly true that in some instances there has been an abuse of this power. I have known of instances, but I would say, from my own personal experience, that they are few and far between.
In any Army you get those who are not all they should be, but, by and large, I think the European officers and the the British N.C.O's have set a very high standard in this force. Many of the troops and European officers and N.C.O's whom I knew now form part of the 14th Army in Burma. I think they have done a very good job there, and the good job they have done is in no small part due to the training they received when in West Africa.
May I give just one instance of what occurred to a brother officer of mine in West Africa? He was with his battery on the line of march and the native troops were carrying all the guns in a dismantled form. They halted for a rest, and when the rest was at an end, they were ordered to pick up their guns and march. Some two or three of the native troops refused to obey the order, and they lay on the ground and clutched at the scrub, and would not pick up their guns and continue the march. The whole of the company watched with great interest, wondering what the British officer would do. Had he not taken prompt action difficulties might have arisen from a disciplinary point of view.
He got hold of the native sergeant-major and ordered him to give each man who refused to obey the order three strokes across the backside. These were given, and they then picked up their packs, and continued the line of march. The officer who gave that order rendered himself liable to be court-martialled, because when I was in West Africa any European officer who struck a native trooper was under the orders of the

General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, to be court-martialled. I think the officer took the right course, the only course open to him.
I conclude by putting these propositions to the House: First, while I have great respect and liking for native troops, I submit that at this stage in their civilisation power to administer corporal punishment may well be necessary, and it is not regarded by them in the same light as it is by Europeans. Secondly, it is within my knowledge that cases have arisen in West Africa in which this power has been abused by young subalterns inexperienced in the command of native troops. I do not believe that that abuse has been large. I believe that by and large European officers of the West African Frontier Forces and British non-commissioned officers have set a very high standard, and they are well liked and loved by the native troops. The way in which they have commanded those troops is instanced by the very fine performance they are putting up with the 14th Army in Burma.

9.47 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Petherick): I would not in any way complain, and no Member of any Government would have the right to complain, about a matter of this kind being raised in the House on the Adjournment, or on any Motion. All the subjects of His Majesty, whether black, white, yellow or brown, who are subject to the Colonial Office, may have certain grievances, and, if any hon. Member of this House feels that the grievances are sufficiently justified to deserve ventilation on the floor of the House, he would be quite right in bringing them forward. The hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) put his case very moderately. On the general matter of corporal punishment, I hope that the House will forgive me for saying very little. I remember that, just before the war, there was a very great and violent division of opinion in this country on the general subject of corporal punishment, so much so that an important Bill which was then being discussed in the House was never passed, after a great many months of discussion in Committee stage upstairs, because the war broke out too soon. I would therefore say that, on the general question, this is not a right moment to discuss it.
I therefore confine myself to the general allegations which the hon. Member for West Leyton put forward in a letter to the War Office, and on which he asked for specific replies, not, of course, necessarily supporting those allegations. He complained in respect of a certain Private Ogunnoiki, who put forward to the hon. Member certain suggestions of maltreatment, on which I now have something to say. Private Ogunnoiki, I should say, was a deserter. He had enlisted at Lagos on 29th October, 1940, aged 18. He deserted some four years later on 1st February, 1944. He then made certain allegations with regard to his treatment, on which I shall now have something to say. Any statement put forward by a deserter from the Army ought to be treated with, at least, a certain reserve, and very strong corroborative evidence ought to be desired before the evidence which the deserter puts forward is accepted as correct. He complained of his treatment after he had, in fact, deserted and he then put forward these allegations about things that had happened to him, so he said, about three years previously, in October, 1940. Private Ogunnoiki said that, on arrival at the prison camp to which he was sent after his desertion, the first thing that happened to him was that he was treated to what was known as a "welcome flogging." I rather suspect that expression; I doubt very much if a West African native would have invented an expression of that kind. Where it came from I do not know. With regard to the allegation that he was beaten when he arrived, I would reply with a flat contradiction.
Corporal punishment, in the sense of flogging, I am informed, is never inflicted on soldiers in Nigeria, except as a valid sentence following a general court-martial. Any such flogging, or beating, on arrival at a prison or detention camp, would be a legal offence, and there would be severe disciplinary action. His next allegation was that he was subject to field punishment, which was accompanied by flogging, and that he and other prisoners were obliged to carry heavy burdens on their heads. Most people who have been to West Africa know that the carrying of heavy burdens by natives on their heads is not uncommon, even if they have not been sentenced; they often find it preferable to carrying such loads in their

hands. It is true that during detention men are obliged to carry, as a form of punishment, pretty heavy burdens. These detention camps are pretty severe; otherwise, it would be no good having them in those countries. It is admitted that men are sometimes made to carry heavy burdens as a punishment. So far as field punishment, accompanied by flogging, is concerned, on certain occasions, when men have proved recalcitrant in those prisons, the provosts, who are native N.C.O.'s, have been found to strike men with canes. When this matter was brought to the attention of the general officer in command out there, he gave orders that this was not to happen, and that during field punishment no cane must be used on the prisoners.
A much more serious series of allegations was made by Pte. Ogunnoiki to the hon. Member for West Leyton. He alleged that men had died of ill-treatment in No. 3 West Africa Military Prison or in No. 34 Military Hospital. A great deal of trouble was taken to check these allegations, and the House will gather from the size of this file that a great deal of trouble was taken to examine the whole case. Even after the matter had been examined, I took a certain amount of personal trouble to go into every case and to find out what these men died of. I have a list here of the men in question who are alleged to have died from ill-treatment, which I could give to the House if desired. One man in particular, a certain Private John Will, had been admitted to hospital suffering from acute meningitis, and no connection with any treatment he may have received in prison, however good or ill, was established in relation to the cause of his death, which was, in fact, due to his complaint. I have a list of some six or seven other cases of the same kind, in which death was pretty clearly, or quite clearly, established to have occurred as the result of perfectly well-known diseases. There is one case, for instance, that of Private Bakari Ngiema, who died of bronchial pneumonia.
I think, therefore, that it will be seen by the House—and I could quote the other cases if hon. Members wish—that there is really no substance whatsoever in these allegations that the men died of ill-treatment. A good deal of trouble, too, was taken in asking the doctors, nurses and orderlies in the hospitals concerned whether they had any knowledge what so-


ever of any ill-treatment at all, and every one of them firmly denied knowledge that, when any of these men had been sent to hospital, they were found to have been suffering from ill-treatment, or that the reason for their coming to hospital was the result of ill-treatment. One further allegation that was made and which I think I should mention was this. It was suggested that an instruction was given to the European troops in West Africa that there was to be no fraternisation at all with the natives. That is wholly contrary to the traditions of the British Army. After all, a British soldier, whether he is black or white, is a soldier of the King, and he is treated, or should be treated, by others of different colours on fair and equal terms, and any such suggestion of instructions being given to avoid fraternisation, not only, I think, are unfounded, but certainly would be contrary to the general policy of H.M. Government.
I think, finally, I may say this. There have been one or two allegations flying about on the West coast of Africa of the kind I have mentioned, and I think it is only right, therefore, that I should tell the House that the General Officer Commanding has received an anonymous letter containing allegations similar to these, and that he ordered his Staff Officer to investigate all these allegations on the spot and at once. The report was and I may remind the House again that the letter which he received was anonymous— to the effect that these reports were completely baseless, that in fact prisoners in detention camps are firmly handled, as indeed they have to be, because if you once allow offences of a serious nature to go unpunished in wartime, discipline would very seriously suffer. The No. 3 Detention Barracks mentioned by the hon. Member has been visited on many occasions by the General Officer Commanding and by members of his staff, and there has been no sign, according to their report, of any improper treatment at all. It may be said, of course, that they visited these detention barracks by appointment. That may have been so, but men who rise to the rank of general in the Army are not quite blind, as I remember when I was a subaltern. They are pretty shrewd people, and if there is any treatment which is not as it should be, of the persons concerned, I think it pretty certain that it would have been found out.
One further allegation made, which I must mention, was that the complainant, Private Ogunnoiki, was prevented by a certain Regimental Sergeant-Major Hook from complaining to an officer in July, 1944. It is rather difficult after a considerable space of time to investigate to the full some trivial complaint of that kind. Actually, if anything of the kind had happened, it would be absolutely and entirely alien to Army traditions, and such a complaint should have been handed forward to the superior officer. I have no reason to believe, as is the case, in relation to the rest of those complaints made by the private in question, that there is any more justification for this complaint than for the rest. Therefore, I would say that I really think that although the hon. Member was justified in raising these complaints, he will realisewhen he reads it in Hansard that the answer is very complete, and that the allegations which he has put forward on behalf of the African complainant are completely unfounded.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: While I think that the House, or such as is present, would agree that the case put forward by the hon. Member is cogent, and is convinced also that those allegations are trivial and untrue, I do not think the matter ought to rest there. Anybody who has had to deal with negro workers or troops—and I presume from the gentleman's name that he was of the negro race and not of another race—knows that the negro idea of truth, is completely different from ours. If a white man asks a negro a question, in nine cases out of ten, the negro will give the answer which he thinks the white man will like. It shows great simplicity and a desire to please, and as the negro's conception of truth is not exactly like ours, somebody must have started this, probably some white man. I think that the War Office, before they drop the matter altogether, should prove that there is no cogency in the allegation and ought to make further inquiries as to who it was who started this, and see if this negro was questioned by some white man and gave all these replies. On the whole, I am inclined to think that the ingenuity of the allegation is such that it must have been so.

Mr. Mathers: Has not the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mossley


(Mr. Hopkinson) actually destroyed his own case? He accepts that there is no proof whatever and that the charge has been disposed of. It can only be disposed of by some method of making inquiries, and if they are answered in the way that he indicates in order to please the one making the investigation, nothing is proved either one way or the other.

Mr. Hopkinson: I was merely proposing, in justice to the man himself, that the House should not think he should be condemned because he was telling a pack of lies.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I think that the point which has been made by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) covers a much wider field than Africa, because there are many other countries in which too frequently the desire to please in giving a reply carries weight rather than the desire to be absolutely accurate. I am sure the greatest care has been taken by the Financial Secretary in examining these allegations, and I believe that the mere examination by him and by his Department will have had a good effect. I think that even though some of the charges may have been very much exaggerated, we have had evidence this even-

ing from the hon. and gallant Member for Darwen (Captain Prescott) that, from his personal experience, in a number of cases there have been, actual instances of illegal corporal punishment.
I wish the Financial Secretary could have dealt with that piece of personal experience, which carries all the more weight in that the hon. and gallant Gentle man himself 'believes that corporal punishment, under proper conditions, may be advantageous and the best method of en forcing discipline. I hope that as a result of that statement in the House, further inquiries will be made by the War Office and that we can have the assurance that the utmost care will be taken—I am sure it is the wish of the War Office and of the High Command—that instances of that kind do not occur in future. I believe also that very many in this country, as well as in West Africa, would feel profoundly thankful—

It being half an hour after the conclusion of Business exempted from the provisions of the Standing Orders (Sittings of the House), Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, as modified for this Session by the Order of the House of 30th November.

Adjourned at Seven Minutes past Ten o'Clock.